diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/Mischnajot mit deutscher \303\234bersetzung und Erkl\303\244rung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de].json" "b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/Mischnajot mit deutscher \303\234bersetzung und Erkl\303\244rung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de].json"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f8de06cfce86309875fe2bbe22f8f894d8964aa
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/Mischnajot mit deutscher \303\234bersetzung und Erkl\303\244rung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de].json"
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Batra",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.talmud.de/tlmd/die-deutsche-mischna-uebersetzung",
+ "versionTitle": "Mischnajot mit deutscher Übersetzung und Erklärung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de]",
+ "priority": 0.5,
+ "versionNotes": "Ordnung Seraïm, übers. und erklärt von Ascher Samter. 1887.
Ordnung Moed, von Eduard Baneth. 1887-1927.
Ordnung Naschim, von Marcus Petuchowski u. Simon Schlesinger. 1896-1933.
Ordnung Nesikin, von David Hoffmann. 1893-1898.
Ordnung Kodaschim, von John Cohn. 1910-1925.
Ordnung Toharot, von David Hoffmann, John Cohn und Moses Auerbach. 1910-1933.",
+ "actualLanguage": "de",
+ "languageFamilyName": "german",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא בתרא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Wenn (zwei) Teilhaber im (gemeinsamen) Hofe eine Abteilung machen wollen, so bauen sie die Wand in der Mitte. Je nachdem es üblich ist, von Bruchsteinen, Quadern, Halbziegeln oder (ganzen) Ziegeln zu bauen, so sollen sie bauen, Alles nach dem Landesbrauche. Bei Bruchsteinen gibt der eine drei Handbreit und der Andere gibt (ebenfalls) drei Handbreit; bei Quadern gibt der eine dritthalb Handbreit und der andere gibt (ebenfalls) dritthalb Handbreit; bei Halbziegeln gibt der eine zwei Handbreit, und der andere gibt (ebenfalls) zwei Handbreit; bei (ganzen) Ziegeln gibt der eine anderthalb Handbreit, und der andere gibt (ebenfalls) anderthalb Handbreit. Wenn daher die Wand einstürzt, gehören der Platz und die Steine beiden.",
+ "Und ebenso soll man bei einem Garten, wo es üblich ist zu umzäunen, ihn (dazu) verpflichten; bei einem Gefilde dagegen, wo es üblich ist, nicht zu umzäunen, verpflichtet man ihn nicht (dazu), sondern wenn Einer will, mag er in sein Gebiet hineinrücken, (dort) bauen und von aussen ein Zeichen machen. Wenn daher die Wand einstürzt, gehören der Platz und die Steine ihm. Wenn sie mit Einwilligung beider es machen, so bauen sie die Wand in der Mitte und machen ein Zeichen an der einen und an der andern Seite; wenn daher die Wand einstürzt, gehören der Platz und die Steine beiden.",
+ "Wenn jemand seinen Nächsten von drei Seiten umgrenzt und er verzäunt die erste, die zweite und die dritte Seite, so kann man den andern nicht (zu einem Beitrage) verpflichten. R. Jose sagt: Wenn er sich aufmacht und die vierte Seite verzäunt, so legt man ihm Alles auf.",
+ "Wenn die Scheidewand eines Hofes eingestürzt ist, so verpflichtet man jeden, sie bis vier Ellen aufzubauen. Hierbei wird vorausgesetzt, dass er bezahlt hat, bis der andere einen Beweis bringt, dass er nicht bezahlt hat. Über vier Ellen verpflichtet man ihn nicht (mitzubauen). Hat er aber eine andere Wand daneben gebaut, wenn er auch nicht das Gebälk darüber gedeckt hat, so legt man ihm Alles auf. Hierbei wird vorausgesetzt, dass er nicht bezahlt hat, bis er den Beweis bringt, dass er bezahlt hat.",
+ "Man zwingt Jeden ein Torhaus und eine Türe zum Hofe mitzubauen. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Nicht alle Höfe sind eines Thorhauses benötigt. Man zwingt Jeden, für die Stadt Mauer, Thore und Riegel mitzubauen. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Nicht alle Städte sind einer Mauer benötigt. Wie lange hat man in der Stadt zu wohnen, um den Einwohnern der Stadt gleich zu sein? Zwölf Monate. Hat man darin ein Wohnhaus gekauft, so ist man sofort den Einwohnern der Stadt gleich.",
+ "Man braucht den Hof nur dann teilen zu lassen, wenn vier Ellen für den Einen und vier Ellen für den Andern darin sind; das Feld nur dann, wenn neun Kab-Aussaat für den Einen und neun Kab-Aussaat für den Andern darin sind. R. Jehuda sagt: Wenn neun halbe Kab-Aussaat für den Einen und neun halbe Kab-Aussaat für den Andern darin sind. Einen Garten braucht man nur dann zu teilen, wenn eine halbe Kab-Aussaat für den Einen und eine halbe Kab-Aussaat für den Andern darin ist. R. Akiba sagt: Ein viertel Kab. Man braucht nicht zu teilen einen Saal, einen Palast, einen Taubenschlag, einen Mantel, ein Badehaus oder eine Ölpresse, ausser wenn darin für den Einen und für den Andern ein hinreichender Anteil ist [Dies ist die Regel: Alles, bei dem, wenn es geteilt wird, (jedem Teile) der (vorige) Name bleibt, muss man teilen lassen; das, wobei (dies) nicht (der Fall ist), braucht man nicht teilen zu lassen]. Wann gilt dies? Wenn nicht beide (Teilhaber) einwilligen, wenn aber beide einwilligen, können sie (Alles), selbst wenn es weniger ist, teilen. Heilige Schriften jedoch darf man, selbst wenn beide einwilligen, nicht teilen."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Es darf Niemand eine Zisterne nahe bei der Zisterne seines Nächsten graben, auch keinen Graben, keine Höhle, keinen Wasserkanal und keinen Wäscher-Teich, es sei denn, dass man dieselben von der Wand seines Nächsten drei Handbreit entfernt und (die Wände) mit Kalk überzieht. Man muss Öltrester, Dünger, Salz, Kalk und Feuersteine von der Wand seines Nächsten drei Handbreit entfernen, oder (die Wand) mit Kalk überziehen. Man muss die Saaten, den Pflug und den Urin von der Wand (des Nächsten) drei Handbreit entfernen. Man entferne die Handmühle (so, dass) vom untern Mühlstein ab drei (Handbreit Zwischenraum seien), was vom obern Mühlstein ab vier ausmacht. Den Backofen (entferne man so, dass) vom Bauche ab drei (Handbreit Zwischenraum bleiben), was vom obern Rande ab vier ausmacht.",
+ "Es darf Niemand einen Backofen im Erdgeschoss anbringen, es sei denn, dass darüber (ein freier Raum von) vier Ellen Höhe bleibe. Stellt man ihn im Söller auf, so muss darunter drei Handbreit Estrich sein; bei einem Herde (genügt) eine Handbreit, und wenn man schädigt, muss man den Schaden ersetzen. R. Simon sagt: Man hat nur deshalb alle diese Maasse bestimmt, damit man, wenn man geschädigt hat, vom Ersatze frei sei.",
+ "Man darf keinen Bäcker- oder Färber-Laden unter dem Speicher seines Nächsten öffnen; auch (darf man dort) keinen Rinderstall (anlegen). Jedoch hat man (erstere) unter einem Wein-Magazine erlaubt, aber nicht einen Rinderstall. Einen Laden im (gemeinsamen) Hofe kann man (jedem Bewohner) verwehren, indem man zu ihm sagt: Ich kann wegen des Lärms der Ein- und Ausgehenden nicht schlafen. Wer Geräte verfertigt, muss hinausgehen und sie auf dem Markte verkaufen. Jedoch kann man Niemandem (die Arbeit) verwehren, dass man zu ihm sage: Ich kann vor dem Lärm des Hammers, oder der Handmühle, oder der Kinder nicht schlafen.",
+ "Derjenige, dessen Wand an der Wand seines Nächsten liegt, darf nicht an jene eine andere Wand stellen, es sei denn, dass er sie von dieser vier Ellen weit entfernt. Bei Fenstern (muss man) sowohl darüber, als darunter, als gegenüber vier Ellen (weit entfernen).",
+ "Man entferne die Leiter vom Taubenschlage (des Nächsten) vier Ellen, damit nicht der Marder daran hinaufspringe. Die Wand (entferne man) von der Dachrinne vier Ellen, damit man die Leiter aufstellen könne. Man entferne den Taubenschlag von der Stadt fünfzig Ellen. Es mache Niemand einen Taubenschlag in seinem Gebiete, ausser wenn er fünfzig Ellen nach jeder Seite besitzt. R. Jehuda sagt: Einen Raum von vier Kor-Aussaat, das ist der Raum des Taubenfluges. Hat man ihn aber gekauft, so bleibt er, wenn auch nur ein Raum von einer viertel Kab-Aussaat dabei ist, in seinem Besitzrechte.",
+ "Ein junges Täubchen, das innerhalb fünfzig Ellen (vom Taubenschlage) gefunden wird, gehört dem Herrn des Taubenschlages; ausserhalb fünfzig Ellen gehört es dem Finder. Wird es zwischen zwei Taubenschlägen gefunden, (so gilt Folgendes:) ist es diesem näher, so gehört es (dem Besitzer von) diesem, ist es jenem näher, so gehört es (dem Besitzer von) jenem, ist es von jedem gleich weit entfernt, so teilen es beide.",
+ "Man entferne den Baum fünfundzwanzig Ellen von der Stadt, Caruben und Sykomoren fünfzig Ellen. Abba Saul sagt: Jeden unfruchtbaren Baum fünfzig Ellen. War die Stadt früher da, so haut man (den Baum) um und zahlt nicht den Wert (dafür), war aber der Baum früher da, so haut man ihn um und zahlt dessen Wert; ist es zweifelhaft, ob dieser oder jene früher da war, so haut man (den Baum) um und zahlt nicht den Wert (dafür).",
+ "Man entferne eine ständige Tenne fünfzig Ellen von der Stadt. Es darf Niemand eine ständige Tenne in seinem Gebiete anlegen, es sei denn dass fünfzig Ellen nach jeder Seite hin ihm gehören; man entferne (die Tenne) von den Pflanzungen und dem urbar gemachten Felde so weit, dass sie nicht schade.",
+ "Man entferne Äser, Gräber und eine Gerberei fünfzig Ellen von der Stadt. Eine Gerberei darf man nur an der Ostseite der Stadt anlegen. R. Akiba sagt: Man darf sie an jeder Seite mit Ausnahme der Westseite anlegen (entferne sie aber fünfzig Ellen).",
+ "Man entferne die Flachsbeize von dem Kraut, den Lauch von den Zwiebeln und den Senf von den Bienen; R. Jose erlaubt den Senf (überall zu säen).",
+ "Man entferne den Baum fünfundzwanzig Ellen von der Zisterne, die Carube und Sykomore fünfzig Ellen; (dies gilt) sowohl von oben, als von der Seite. War die Zisterne früher da, so haut man (den Baum) um und zahlt dessen Wert; war aber der Baum früher da, so darf man ihn nicht umhauen; ist es zweifelhaft, ob dieser oder jene früher da war, so darf man (den Baum) nicht umhauen. R. Jose sagt: Selbst wenn die Cisterne vor dem Baume da war, darf man diesen nicht umhauen; denn jener gräbt auf seinem Gebiete, und dieser pflanzt auf dem seinigen.",
+ "Man darf keinen Baum nahe am Felde seines Nächsten pflanzen, es sei denn dass man ihn vier Ellen davon entfernt, es seien Weinstöcke oder irgend ein anderer Baum. Ist eine Mauer dazwischen, so darf dieser bis an die Mauer von dieser Seite und jener bis an die Mauer von jener Seite bebauen. Gehen die Wurzeln (der Bäume) in das Gebiet des Andern hinaus, so darf dieser drei Handbreit tief sie abschneiden, damit sie nicht den Pflug aufhalten. Gräbt er eine Zisterne, einen Graben oder eine Höhle, so darf er bis hinab abschneiden, und das Holz gehört ihm.",
+ "Wenn ein Baum in das Feld des Nächsten hinüberhangt, so darf dieser so weit wegschneiden, als der Rinderstachel über dem Pfluge reicht; von Carube und Sykomore (darf man Alles) bis an das Senkblei (wegschneiden); in einem Bewässerungs-Felde (darf man) jeden Baum bis an das Senkblei (beschneiden). Abba Saul sagt: Jeden unfruchtbaren Baum (darf man) bis an das Senkblei (beschneiden).",
+ "Wenn ein Baum in das öffentliche Gebiet hinüberhangt, so schneidet man so viel weg, dass ein Kamel und sein Reiter (darunter) hinziehen können. R. Jehuda sagt: (Nur so viel, dass) ein mit Flachs oder Rebenbündeln beladenes Kamel (darunter hinziehen kann). R. Simon sagt: Jeden Baum (beschneide man) bis an das Senkblei wegen der Unreinheit."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Die Ersitzung der Häuser, Zisternen, Gräben, Höhlen, Taubenschläge, Badehäuser, Ölpressen, Bewässerungs-Felder und Sklaven, überhaupt jeder Sache, die beständig Früchte trägt, — deren Ersitzung währt drei Jahre, von Tag zu Tag (gerechnet). Bei einem von Regen getränkten Felde währt die Ersitzung drei Jahre, aber nicht von Tag zu Tag (gerechnet). R. Ismael sagt. Drei Monate vom ersten, drei Monate vom letzten und zwölf Monate vom mittelsten Jahre, das sind achtzehn Monate; R. Akiba sagt: Einen Monat vom ersten, einen Monat vom letzten und zwölf Monate vom mittelsten Jahre, das sind vierzehn Monate. Es sagt R. Ismael: Wobei sind diese Worte gesagt? Bei einem Saatfelde, bei einem Baumfelde aber, sobald man für sich den Wein-Ertrag eingebracht, die Ölbäume abgepflückt und die Feigen eingesammelt hat, so gilt dies wie drei Besitzjahre.",
+ "Drei Länder gibt es betreffs der Ersitzung: Judäa, Transjordanland und Galiläa. War er in Judäa, und jemand hat in Galiläa ersessen oder (war er) in Galiläa, und jemand hat in Judäa ersessen, so ist die Ersitzung nicht gültig; vielmehr muss er mit ihm in derselben Provinz sein. Es sagt R. Jehuda: Man hat nur deshalb drei Jahre bestimmt, damit, wenn er etwa in Spanien ist und jemand ein Jahr (sein Grundstück) besetzt, man ein Jahr hinreisen und es ihm anzeigen, und er das andere Jahr zurückkommen könne.",
+ "Jede Ersitzung, die nicht mit einer (rechtmässigen) Begründung verbunden ist, gilt nicht als Ersitzung. Wie ist dies gemeint? Sagt jemand zu ihm: „was hast du in meinem Gebiete zu tun?“ und er erwidert: „es hat noch Niemand mir darüber jemals etwas gesagt“; so ist die Ersitzung nicht gültig; (erwidert er aber): „du hast es mir verkauft,“ — „du hast es mir als Geschenk gegeben,“ — dein Vater hat es mir verkauft,“ — „dein Vater hat es mir als Geschenk gegeben;“ so gilt die Ersitzung. Wer wegen einer Erbschaft gekommen ist, bedarf keiner weiteren Begründung. (Die Handwerker, die Miteigentümer, die Feldbauer und die Vormünder haben kein Ersitzungsrecht. Der Mann hat kein Ersitzungsrecht an den Gütern seiner Frau, und die Frau hat kein Ersitzungsrecht an den Gütern ihres Mannes, der Vater nicht an den Gütern des Sohnes, und der Sohn nicht an den Gütern des Vaters. Wobei sind diese Worte gesagt? Beim Ersitzen; gibt aber jemand ein Geschenk, oder teilen sich Brüder (in einer Erbschaft), oder ergreift jemand Besitz von den Gütern eines Proselyten, so ist, wenn man nur etwas verschlossen, eingezäunt oder eingerissen hat, dies schon eine (gültige) Besitzergreifung.",
+ "Wenn zwei von jemand bezeugen, dass er es drei Jahre niessbraucht hat, und sie werden falsch befunden, so müssen sie ihm das Ganze bezahlen. Sind zwei (Zeugen) für das erste, zwei für das zweite und zwei für das dritte (Jahr), so teilt man unter sie in drei Teile. Sind es drei Brüder, und Einer verbindet sich mit (jedem von) ihnen, so sind dies drei Zeugnisse; sie sind jedoch Ein Zeugnis hinsichtlich der Überführung.",
+ "Welches sind die Dinge, bei denen Ersitzung Statt hat, und welches sind die Dinge, bei denen keine Ersitzung Statt hat? Hat jemand Vieh in den Hof gestellt, oder einen Ofen, einen Herd oder eine Handmühle; hat er darin Hühner gezogen oder Dünger in den Hof gebracht; so gilt da keine Ersitzung. Hat er aber vor seinem Viehe eine Wand gemacht, die zehn Handbreit hoch ist, ebenso vor dem Ofen, dem Herde oder der Handmühle; hat er Hühner in das Haus gebracht, oder für seinen Dünger einen Platz gemacht, der drei Handbreit tief oder drei Handbreit hoch ist; so gilt dabei eine Ersitzung.",
+ "Betreffs der Traufrinne gilt keine Ersitzung, aber hinsichtlich ihres Ortes gilt eine Ersitzung. Betreffs der Dachrinne gilt eine Ersitzung. Hinsichtlich einer ägyptischen Leiter gilt keine Ersitzung, hinsichtlich einer tyrischen gilt eine Ersitzung. Betreffs eines ägyptischen Fensters gilt keine Ersitzung, betreffs eines tyrischen gilt eine Ersitzung. Was ist ein ägyptisches Fenster? Jedes, durch welches nicht der Kopf eines Menschen gehen kann. R. Jehuda sagt: Wenn dasselbe eine Einfassung hat, so gilt dabei eine Ersitzung, obgleich nicht der Kopf eines Menschen durch kann. Betreffs eines Vortrittes von mindestens einer Handbreit gilt eine Ersitzung, und man kann (dessen Anlegung) verwehren; ist er schmäler als eine Handbreit, so gilt dabei keine Ersitzung, und man kann (dessen Anlegung) nicht verwehren.",
+ "Es darf niemand seine Fenster in den gemeinsamen Hof eröffnen. Kauft einer ein Haus in einem fremden Hofe, so darf er es nicht in den gemeinsamen Hof eröffnen; hat er auf seinem Hause einen Söller gebaut, so darf er ihn nicht in den gemeinsamen Hof eröffnen; sondern wenn er will, kann er ein Zimmer innerhalb seines Hauses bauen, oder einen Söller auf seinem Hause bauen und in sein Haus eröffnen. Es darf niemand in den gemeinsamen Hof eine Türe gegenüber einer Türe (des Nachbars) oder ein Fenster gegenüber einem Fenster eröffnen. War sie klein, darf er sie nicht gross machen, aus Einer darf er nicht zwei machen. Man darf jedoch nach dem öffentlichen Gebiete eine Türe einer Türe (eines Andern) gegenüber und ein Fenster einem Fenster gegenüber eröffnen. War sie klein, darf man sie gross machen, aus Einer darf man zwei machen.",
+ "Man darf keine Höhlung unter dem öffentlichen Gebiete machen, (nämlich) Brunnen, Gräben und Höhlen. R. Elieser erlaubt es in der Weise, dass ein mit Steinen beladener Wagen darüber fahren kann. Man darf keine Vortritte und Altane nach dem öffentlichen Gebiete hinausbauen, sondern, wenn er will, muss er (die Mauer) in sein Gebiet hineinrücken und dann hinausbauen. Kaufte er aber einen Hof, woran Vortritte und Altane waren, so bleibt er in seinem Besitzrechte."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Wenn jemand ein Haus verkauft, so hat er den Anbau nicht mit verkauft, obwohl dieser einen Eingang (zum Hause) hinein hat; auch nicht das Zimmer, welches hinter dem Hause ist; auch nicht das Dach, wenn es ein zehn Handbreit hohes Geländer hat. R. Jehuda sagt: Wenn dazu die Form eines Eingangs führt, so ist es, selbst wenn es nicht zehn Handbreit hoch ist, nicht mit verkauft.",
+ "Ferner nicht den Brunnen und nicht die Zisterne, obwohl er ihm geschrieben hat: „Tiefe und Höhe.“ Doch muss er sich dazu einen Weg kaufen; (dies sind) die Worte R. Akiba’s. Die Weisen aber sagen: Er braucht sich keinen Weg dazu zu kaufen. Doch gesteht R. Akiba zu, dass wenn er zu ihm gesagt hat: „ausser diesen, “ er sich keinen Weg dazu zu kaufen braucht. Hat jemand diese an einen Andern verkauft, so braucht dieser nach R. Akiba sich keinen Weg dazu zu kaufen. Die Weisen aber sagen: Er muss sich einen Weg dazu kaufen.",
+ "Wenn jemand ein Haus verkauft, so hat er die Türe, aber nicht den Schlüssel mit verkauft; er hat den feststehenden Mörser, aber nicht den beweglichen mit verkauft; er hat den Mühlen-Kegel, aber nicht den Mühlen-Korb mit verkauft, auch nicht den Ofen und nicht den Herd (and. LA.: Er hat den Ofen mit verkauft, er hat den Herd mit verkauft). Wenn er aber zu ihm gesagt hat: „es und Alles, was darin ist; “ so ist alles dieses mit verkauft.",
+ "Wenn jemand einen Hof verkauft, hat er die Häuser, Zisternen, Gräben und Höhlen mit verkauft, aber nicht das Mobiliar. Wenn er aber zu ihm sagt: „dieser und alles, was darin ist, “ so ist alles verkauft. Jedenfalls hat er das Badehaus und das Ölpressen-Haus, die darin sind, nicht mit verkauft. R. Elieser sagt: Wer einen Hof verkauft, hat nur den freien Raum des Hofes verkauft.",
+ "Wenn jemand ein Ölpressen-Haus verkauft, so hat er das Becken, den Reibstein und die Stangen mit verkauft; er hat aber nicht mit verkauft die Pressbretter, das Rad und den Pressbalken. Wenn er aber zu ihm gesagt hat: „es und alles, was darin ist“, so ist dies alles mit verkauft. R. Elieser sagt: Wer ein Ölpressen-Haus verkauft, hat den Pressbalken mit verkauft.",
+ "Wenn jemand ein Badehaus verkauft, so hat er nicht die Bretter, die Bänke und die Vorhänge mit verkauft. Wenn er aber zu ihm gesagt hat: „es und alles, was darin ist“, so ist dies alles mit verkauft. Jedenfalls hat er die Wasserbehälter und die Holzmagazine nicht mit verkauft.",
+ "Wenn jemand eine Stadt verkauft, so hat er die Häuser, Zisternen, Gräben, Höhlen, Badehäuser, Taubenschläge, Ölpressen-Häuser und bewässerte Ländereien, aber nicht die Mobilien mit verkauft. Wenn er aber zu ihm gesagt hat: „sie und alles, was darin ist“, so ist alles, selbst wenn Vieh und Sklaven darin sind, mit verkauft. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Wer eine Stadt verkauft, hat auch den Wächter mit verkauft.",
+ "Wenn jemand ein Feld verkauft, so hat er die Steine, die dazu gebraucht werden, mit verkauft; ebenso die Stäbe im Weinberge, die dazu gebraucht werden; ferner das Getreide, das noch an der Erde haftet, das Schilf - Gebüsch, das weniger ist als ein Viertel Kab-Aussaat, die Wachthütte, die nicht mit Lehm befestigt ist, die ungepfropfte Carube und die unbehauene Sykomore.",
+ "Er hat aber nicht mit verkauft die Steine, die nicht dazu gebraucht werden; ebenso nicht die Stäbe im Weinberge, die nicht dazu gebraucht werden; ferner nicht das Getreide, das von der Erde abgepflückt ist. Wenn er aber zu ihm gesagt hat: „es und Alles, was darin ist“, so ist dies Alles mit verkauft. Jedenfalls hat er nicht mit verkauft das Schilf-Gebüsch, das die Grösse eines Viertel Kab-Aussaat hat, die Wachthütte, die mit Lehm befestigt ist, die gepfropfte Carube und den Sykomoren - Stamm; ferner nicht die Zisterne, die Kelter und den Taubenschlag, mögen sie wüst oder besetzt sein. Er muss sich jedoch dazu einen Weg kaufen; (dies sind) die Worte R. Akiba’s. Die Weisen aber sagen: Er braucht dies nicht. Doch gesteht R. Akiba zu, dass, wenn er zu ihm gesagt hat: „ausser diesen“, er sich keinen Weg dazu zu kaufen braucht. Hat jemand diese an einen andern verkauft, so braucht dieser nach R. Akiba sich keinen Weg dazu zu kaufen. Die Weisen aber sagen: Er muss sich einen Weg dazu kaufen. Wobei sind die (obigen) Worte gesagt? Bei einem Verkäufer; wenn aber jemand eine Schenkung macht, schenkt er alle diese (Dinge) mit. Wenn Brüder (eine Erbschaft) teilen, so haben sie, wenn sie ein Feld erworben, dies Alles mit erworben. Wer sich der Güter eines Proselyten bemächtigt, hat, wenn er vom Felde Besitz ergriffen, auch von allen diesen Besitz ergriffen. Wer ein Feld heiligt, hat auch dies alles mit geheiligt. R. Simon sagt: Wer ein Feld heiligt, hat nichts mitgeheiligt, ausser der gepfropften Carube und dem Sykomoren-Stamm."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Wenn jemand ein Schiff verkauft, so hat er den Mastbaum, das Segel, den Anker und alle Ruder mit verkauft; er hat aber nicht mit verkauft die Knechte, die Säcke und die Ladung. Wenn er aber zu ihm gesagt hat: „es und alles, was darin ist“, so ist dies alles mit verkauft. Wer einen Wagen verkauft, hat nicht die Maultiere mit verkauft; wer die Maultiere verkauft, hat nicht den Wagen mit verkauft. Wer ein Joch verkauft, hat nicht die Rinder mit verkauft; wer die Rinder verkauft, hat nicht das Joch mit verkauft. R. Jehuda sagt: Der Kaufpreis entscheidet. In welcher Weise? Sagt er zu ihm: „verkaufe mir dein Joch um zweihundert Sus“, so ist es klar, dass ein Joch nicht zweihundert Sus wert ist. Die Weisen aber sagen: Der Kaufpreis beweist nichts.",
+ "Wer einen Esel verkauft, hat nicht dessen Geräte mit verkauft. Nachum der Meder sagt: Er hat dessen Geräte mit verkauft. R. Jehuda sagt: Zuweilen sind sie mit verkauft und zuweilen sind sie nicht mit verkauft. In welchem Falle? War der Esel vor ihm, der seine Geräte auf sich hatte, und er sprach zu ihm „verkaufe mir diesen deinen Esel!“, so sind dessen Geräte mit verkauft; (sagt er aber:) „ist dies dein Esel, (verkaufe ihn mir!)“, so sind dessen Geräte nicht mit verkauft.",
+ "Wer eine Eselin verkauft, hat das Füllen mit verkauft. Wer eine Kuh verkauft, hat ihr Junges nicht mit verkauft. Wer einen Mistplatz verkauft, hat dessen Dünger mit verkauft. Wer eine Zisterne verkauft, hat deren Wasser mit verkauft. Wer einen Bienenstock verkauft, hat die Bienen mit verkauft. Wer einen Taubenschlag verkauft, hat die Tauben mit verkauft. Wenn jemand die Früchte des Taubenschlages von seinen Nächsten kauft, so muss er die erste Brut fliegen lassen. (Kauft jemand) die Früchte eines Bienenstockes, so kann er drei Bienenschwärme nehmen, dann kann jener (die Bienen) unfruchtbar machen. (Kauft jemand) die Honigwaben, so muss er zwei Waben zurücklassen. (Kauft jemand) Ölbäume abzuhauen, so muss er zwei Zweige zurücklassen.",
+ "Wenn jemand zwei Bäume im Felde seines Nächsten kauft, so hat er keinen Boden dazu erworben. R. Meïr sagt: Er hat Boden dazu erworben. Wenn die Bäume (nachher) grösser werden, so darf Jener (sie) nicht. beschneiden. Was vom Stamme aufschiesst, gehört ihm, das von den Wurzeln (Hervorschiessende) gehört dem Herrn des Bodens. Wenn die Bäume absterben, gehört der Boden nicht ihm. Hat er drei Bäume gekauft, so hat er auch Boden dazu erworben. Wenn die Bäume (nachher) grösser werden, darf Jener (sie) beschneiden. Was vom Stamme und von den Wurzeln emporschiesst, gehört ihm, und wenn sie absterben, gehört ihm der Boden.",
+ "Wenn jemand den Kopf eines Rindviehes verkauft, so hat er die Füsse nicht mit verkauft: hat er die Füsse verkauft, so hat er den Kopf nicht mit verkauft. Hat er die Lunge verkauft, so hat er die Leber nicht mit verkauft; hat er die Leber verkauft, so hat er die Lunge nicht mit verkauft. Vom Kleinvieh dagegen (gelten die Restimmungen): Wer den Kopf verkauft, hat die Füsse mit verkauft; wer die Füsse verkauft, hat den Kopf nicht mit verkauft; wer die Lunge verkauft, hat die Leber mit verkauft; wer die Leber verkauft, hat die Lunge nicht mit verkauft.",
+ "Vier Normen gibt es hinsichtlich der Verkäufer. Hat jemand Weizen als gut verkauft, und er wird schlecht befunden, so kann der Käufer (vom Kaufe) zurücktreten. Hat er ihn für schlecht verkauft und er wird gut befunden, so kann der Verkäufer zurücktreten. Hat er ihn für schlecht verkauft, und er wird auch schlecht befunden, oder hat er ihn für gut verkauft und wird auch gut befunden, so kann keiner von beiden zurücktreten. Hat er dunkelroten Weizen verkauft, und es stellt sich heraus, dass er weiss ist; oder hat er weissen verkauft, und es stellt sich heraus, dass er dunkelrot ist; oder verkauft jemand Ölbaum-Holz, und es findet sich, dass es Sykomoren-Holz ist; oder verkauft man Sykomoren-Holz, und es findet sich, dass es Ölbaum-Holz ist; oder verkauft jemand Wein und er stellt sich als Essig heraus; oder verkauft man Essig, und es findet sich, dass es Wein ist,— so können beide zurücktreten.",
+ "Verkauft jemand seinem Nächsten Früchte, und dieser hat die Früchte an sich gezogen, obwohl jener sie ihm nicht zugemessen, so hat er sie erworben. Hat jener sie ihm zugemessen, er aber sie nicht an sich gezogen, so hat er sie nicht erworben. Wenn er klug ist, so mietet er deren Platz Wenn jemand Flachs von seinem Nächsten kauft, so hat er ihn nicht eher erworben, bis er ihn von einem Orte zum andern trägt. Ist derselbe noch am Boden haftend und er reisst etwas davon aus, so hat er ihn erworben.",
+ "Wenn jemand seinem Nächsten Wein oder Öl verkauft, und es teurer oder wohlfeiler wird; (so gilt Folgendes:) geschah dies bevor das Maass angefüllt worden, so ist es des Verkäufers (Eigentum); geschah es aber, nachdem das Maass angefüllt worden, so gehört es dem Käufer. Wenn ein Makler zwischen ihnen ist und das Fass zerbricht, so ist es zum Schaden des Maklers zerbrochen. Der Verkäufer ist verpflichtet, (aus dem Maasse ihm drei Tropfen austropfen zu lassen. Hat er es nachher umgebogen und die Neige gesammelt, so gehört diese dem Verkäufer. Der Krämer aber ist nicht verpflichtet drei Tropfen austropfen zu lassen. R. Jehuda sagt: Nur am Vorabend des Schabbats bei einbrechender Dunkelheit ist er davon befreit.",
+ "Wenn jemand sein Kind zum Krämer schickt, ihm einen Pondion mitgibt, jener ihm um einen Issar Öl zumisst und einen Issar herausgibt, dieses aber die Flasche zerbricht und den Issar verliert; so ist der Krämer schuldig. R. Jehuda erklärt ihn frei, da Jener es auf diese Gefahr hin geschickt. Die Weisen gestehen dem R. Jehuda zu, dass, wenn die Flasche in der Hand des Kindes war und der Krämer hinein gemessen hat, der Krämer frei ist.",
+ "Der Grosshändler muss seine Maasse einmal in dreissig Tagen auswischen, der Privatmann einmal in zwölf Monaten. R. Simon sagt: Das Verhältniss ist umgekehrt. Ein Krämer muss seine Maasse zweimal in der Woche auswischen, seine Gewichte einmal in der Woche abreiben, und die Waage nach jedesmaligem Wägen auswischen.",
+ "Es sagt R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels: Wobei sind diese Worte gesagt? Bei feuchten Dingen, bei trockenen aber ist es nicht nötig. Er ist ferner verpflichtet, ihm eine Handbreit Ausschlag zu geben. Hat er ihm aber genau zugewogen, so muss er ihm seine Auswaage zugeben, und zwar ein Zehntel bei feuchten und ein zwanzigstel bei trockenen Dingen. Wo es Brauch ist, mit kleinem Maasse zu messen, darf man nicht mit grossem messen; (wo man) mit grossem (misst), soll man nicht mit kleinem messen. (Wo es Brauch ist) abzustreichen, soll man nicht gehäuftes Maass geben; wo man gehäuftes Maass verkauft, darf man nicht abstreichen.."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Wenn jemand seinem Nächsten Früchte verkauft und diese nicht wachsen, so braucht er, selbst wenn es Leinsamen ist, nicht dafür zu haften. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Für Gartengesäme, die nicht gegessen werden, muss man haften.",
+ "Wenn jemand seinem Nächsten Früchte verkauft, so muss dieser auf jedem Sea ein viertel Kab Unrat übernehmen; bei Feigen muss er zehn wurmstichige auf hundert übernehmen. (Kauft man) einen Keller mit Wein, so muss man zehn säuerliche Fässer auf hundert übernehmen. Bei Krügen in Saron, muss man zehn schlechte Krüge auf hundert übernehmen.",
+ "Wenn jemand seinem Nächsten Wein verkauft und dieser sauer geworden ist, so braucht er nicht dafür zu haften. Wenn es aber bekannt ist, dass sein Wein sauer wird, so ist es ein irrtümlicher Kauf. Wenn er zu ihm sagt: „ich verkaufe dir gewürzten Wein.“ so ist er verpflichtet, ihm denselben bis zum Wochenfeste (gut) zu erhalten. „Alter (Wein,“ heisst) vom vorigen Jahre, „gealterter,“ vom vorletzten Jahre.",
+ "Verkauft jemand seinem Nächsten einen Platz, damit er sich daselbst ein Haus baue, oder übernimmt jemand von seinem Nächsten, ihm ein Hochzeits-Haus für seinen Sohn oder ein Witwenhaus für seine Tochter zu bauen, so baut er vier Ellen (breit) und sechs (Ellen lang); dies die Worte R. Akiba’s. R. Ismaël sagt: Dies ist ein Rinderstall: Wer einen Rinderstall machen will, baut denselben vier Ellen (breit) und sechs (lang); zu einem kleinen Hause gehören sechs Ellen (Breite) acht (Länge); zu einem grossen Hause acht (Breite) und zehn (Länge); zu einem Saale zehn (Länge) und zehn (Breite). Die Höhe sei gleich der Hälfte der Länge und der Hälfte der Breite; als Beleg dazu (dient) der Tempel. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Bei Allen nach Verhältnis des Tempelgebäudes.",
+ "Wenn jemand hinter dem Hause seines Nächsten eine Zisterne hat, so darf er nur zu der Zeit ein- und ausgehen, wenn (andere) Menschen ein- und auszugehen pflegen. Auch darf er nicht sein Vieh hineinführen, um es aus seiner Zisterne zu tränken, sondern er darf nur schöpfen und es draussen tränken. Dieser mache sich ein Schloss, und jener mache sich ein Schloss.",
+ "Wenn jemand einen Garten hinter dem Garten seines Nächsten hat, so darf er nur zu der Zeit ein- und ausgehen, wenn (andere) Menschen ein- und auszugehen pflegen. Er darf keine Handelsleute hineinführen. Er darf auch nicht hineingehen, (um) von da aus in ein anderes Feld (zu kommen). Der Äussere darf den Durchgang besäen. Hat man ihm aber mit beider Einwilligung einen Weg an der Seite angewiesen, so darf er ein- und ausgehen, wann er will, und darf auch Handelsleute hineinführen; er darf aber nicht hineingehen, (um) von da aus in ein anderes Feld (zu kommen); und beide dürfen den Durchgang nicht besäen.",
+ "Wenn ein öffentlicher Weg durch jemands Feld geht, und dieser hat ihn von hier weg- und an die Seite verlegt; so bleibt was er gegeben hat, gegeben, doch was er für sich nahm, nicht ihm überlassen. Ein Privatweg ist vier Ellen breit, ein öffentlicher Weg sechzehn Ellen, der Weg des Königs hat kein Maass. Der Weg zum Begräbnis hat kein Maass. Der Standplatz ist, wie die Richter von Zippori sagen, ein Raum von vier Kab-Aussaat.",
+ "Verkauft jemand seinem Nächsten einen Platz, damit er sich da eine Grabstätte anlege, oder übernimmt jemand von seinem Nächsten, ihm eine Grabstätte anzulegen; so mache er das Innere der Grabhöhle vier Ellen (breit) und sechs (lang) und höhle inwendig acht Nischen aus, nämlich drei von der einen und drei von der andern Seite und zwei gegenüber. Die Nischen seien vier Ellen lang, sieben Handbreit hoch und sechs breit. R. Simon sagt: Er mache das Innere der Höhle sechs Ellen (breit) und acht (lang) und höhle inwendig dreizehn Nischen aus, nämlich vier von der einen und vier von der anderen Seite, drei gegenüber, und eine vom Eingang rechts und eine vom Eingang links. Man mache einen Vorhof am Eingang der Höhle, der sechs Ellen im Quadrat hat, so viel als die Totenbahre und deren Träger (an Raum) einnehmen. Man öffne dazu zwei Höhlen, eine von der einen und eine von der anderen, (gegenüberliegenden) Seite. R. Simon sagt: Viel, nach seinen vier Seiten. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Alles nach der Beschaffenheit des Felsens."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Wenn jemand zu seinem Nächsten sagt: „ich verkaufe Dir Erde für eine Kor-Aussaat,“ und es sind darin Spalten von zehn Handbreit Tiefe oder Felsen von zehn Handbreit Höhe, so werden sie nicht mit gemessen. Sind sie kleiner, so werden sie mit gemessen. Sagt er aber zu ihm: „Erde für ungefähr eine Kor-Aussaat,“ so werden auch Spalten, die tiefer als zehn Handbreit sind, oder Felsen, die höher als zehn Handbreit sind, mit gemessen.",
+ "(Sagt er:) „ich verkaufe Dir Erde für eine Kor-Aussaat, mit der Messschnur gemessen,“ und er hat etwas weniger gegeben, so kann Jener abziehen; hat er etwas mehr gegeben, so muss jener (dies) zurückgeben. Sagt er aber: „es sei weniger oder mehr,“ so gehört es jenem, selbst wenn er bei einer Sea ein viertel Kab weniger oder ein Viertel Kab mehr gegeben hat; ist es mehr als so viel, so berechne man dasselbe. Was gibt er ihm zurück? Geld; wenn er aber will, muss er ihm Land zurückgeben. Wozu hat man aber gesagt, dass er ihm Geld zurückgebe? Um die Macht des Verkäufers zu stärken; denn wenn er in dem Felde neun Kab-Aussaat oder in einem Garten eine halbe Kab-Aussaat und nach R. Akiba ein viertel Kab-Aussaat zurückbehalten würde, muss Jener ihm das Stück Land zurückgeben, und nicht bloß das Viertel muss er zurückgeben, sondern den ganzen Mehrbetrag.",
+ "(Sagt er: „ich verkaufe Dir Erde für eine Kor-Aussaat), mit der Messschnur gemessen, es sei mehr oder weniger“, so hebt (die Bestimmung) „es sei mehr oder weniger“ (die andere Bestimmung) „mit der Messschnur gemessen“ auf. (Sagt er aber:) „es sei mehr oder weniger, mit der Messschnur gemessen“, so hebt (die Stipulation) „mit der Messschnur gemessen“ (die andere) „es sei mehr oder weniger“ auf; dies die Worte des Ben Nanos. (Sagt er:) „nach seinen Zeichen und Grenzen,“ so gehört es Jenem, wenn der Unterschied weniger als ein Sechstel beträgt; (beträgt er) bis ein Sechstel (andere LA.: mehr als ein Sechstel), so ziehe man ab.",
+ "Sagt jemand zu seinem Nächsten: „ich verkaufe Dir ein halbes Feld,“ so wird es zwischen ihnen nach dem Durchschnitt geschätzt, und er nimmt die Hälfte seines Feldes. (Sagt er): „ich verkaufe Dir die Hälfte (des Feldes) an der Südseite,“ so wird es zwischen ihnen nach dem Durchschnitt geschätzt, und er nimmt die Hälfte an der Südseite. Er übernimmt den Platz zur Mauer und zum grossen und kleinen Graben. Wie viel ist die Breite des grossen Grabens? Sechs Handbreit; die des kleinen Grabens drei Handbreit."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Es gibt manche, (Verwandte), die beerben und erben machen, Manche, die beerben aber nicht erben machen, (andere), die erben machen aber nicht beerben, (andere wieder), die weder beerben noch erben machen. Folgende beerben und machen erben: Der Vater seine Söhne, die Söhne ihren Vater und die Brüder von väterlicher Seite beerben und machen erben. Es können der Mann seine Mutter, der Ehemann seine Frau und die Schwesterkinder (ihren Oheim) beerben, aber nicht erben machen, dagegen können die Mutter ihre Söhne, die Frau ihren Ehemann und die Mutter-Brüder (ihren Neffen) erben machen aber nicht beerben. Die Brüder von mütterlicher Seite beerben nicht und machen nicht erben.",
+ "Die Ordnung der Erbschaft ist folgende: (Es heisst:) „Wenn ein Mann stirbt und hat keinen Sohn, so sollt ihr sein Erbe an seine Tochter übergehen lassen.“ Ein Sohn geht (also) der Tochter vor, und alle Nachkommen des Sohnes gehen der Tochter vor. Die Tochter geht den Brüdern vor und alle Nachkommen der Töchter gehen den Brüdern vor. Die Brüder gehen den Vater-Brüdern vor, und die Nachkommen der Brüder gehen den Vater-Brüdern vor. Dies ist die Regel: Von einem Jeden, der in der Erbschaftvorgeht, haben auch dessen Nachkommen dieses Vorrecht. Der Vater aber geht allen seinen Nachkommen vor.",
+ "Die Töchter Zelofchad’s erhielten drei Anteile vom Erbbesitze: Den Anteil ihres Vaters, der von denen war, die aus Ägypten gezogen, den Anteil, den dieser mit seinen Brüdern an den Gütern Chepher’s hatte, und zwar, weil dieser ein Erstgeborener war, einen doppelten Anteil.",
+ "Sowohl der Sohn als die Tochter erhalten das Erbe; jedoch nimmt der (erstgeborene) Sohn zweifachen Anteil von den Gütern des Vaters, er nimmt aber keinen zweifachen Anteil von den Gütern der Mutter, und die Töchter werden unterhalten von den Gütern des Vaters, sie werden aber nicht unterhalten von den Gütern der Mutter.",
+ "Wenn jemand sagt: „jener Mann, (der) mein erstgeborener Sohn (ist), soll keinen zweifachen Anteil erhalten,“ oder: „jener Mann, (der) mein Sohn (ist), soll nicht mit seinen Brüdern erben“, — so hat er nichts gesagt, denn er hat gegen das in der Thora Vorgeschriebene verfügt. Wenn jemand seine Güter mündlich unter seine Kinder verteilt, und dabei dem einen mehr, dem andern weniger zuteilt oder den Erstgeborenen den andern gleich stellt, so sind seine Worte gültig, sagt er aber: „als Erbschaft,“ so hat er nichts gesagt. Hat er (sie) verschrieben (und dabei) sei es am Anfang, sei es in der Mitte, sei es am Ende „als Geschenk“ (hinzugefügt), so sind seine Worte gültig. Wenn jemand sagt: „jener Mann soll mich beerben“ — während er (selbst) eine Tochter hat, (oder er sagt:) „meine Tochter soll mich beerben,“ — während er einen Sohn hat, so hat er nichts gesagt, denn er hat gegen das in der Thora Vorgeschriebene verfügt. R. Jochanan, Sohn Beroka’s, sagt: Wenn er dies gesagt hat auf einen, der fähig ist, von ihm zu erben, so gelten seine Worte; (sagte er es aber) auf einen, der nicht fähig ist, von ihm zu erben, so gelten seine Worte nicht. Wenn jemand seine Güter andern verschreibt und seine Söhne übergeht, so ist das, was er getan hat, gültig; aber die Weisen finden an ihm kein Wohlgefallen. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Wenn seine Söhne sich nicht ordentlich geführt haben, so mag seiner zum Guten gedacht sein.",
+ "Wenn jemand sagt: „dies ist mein Sohn“, so ist er beglaubt; (sagt jemand): „dies ist mein Bruder“, so ist er nicht beglaubt; doch nimmt dieser mit ihm aus seinem Anteile. Stirbt er, so gehen die Güter an ihre (frühere) Stelle zurück. Fallen ihm Güter von einer anderen Stelle zu, so erben seine Brüder mit ihm. Wenn jemand stirbt und man findet ein Testament an seine Hüfte gebunden, so gilt diesnicht. Hat er damit Einem einen Teil seines Vermögens zugeeignet, sei es einem der Erben oder einem, der nicht zu den Erben gehört, so gelten seine Worte.",
+ "Wenn jemand seinen Söhnen seine Güter verschreibt, so muss er schreiben: „von heute an und nach meinem Tode.“ Dies die Worte R. Jehuda’s. R. Jose sagt: Er hat nicht nötig. Wenn jemand seinem Sohne seine Güter auf nach dem Tode verschreibt; so kann der Vater (sie) nicht verkaufen, weil sie dem Sohne verschrieben sind, und der Sohn kann (sie) nicht verkaufen, weil sie noch in der Gewalt des Vaters sind. Verkauft sie der Vater, so bleiben sie (nur) verkauft, bis er stirbt; verkauft sie der Sohn, so hat der Käufer nichts davon, bis der Vater stirbt. Der Vater kann (Früchte) abpflücken und wem er will zu essen geben; was er aber abgepflückt hinterlässt, gehört den Erben. Wenn Jemand grosse und kleine Söhne hinterlässt, so werden die grossen nicht zusammen mit den kleinen versorgt, und die kleinen werden nicht zusammen mit den grossen ernährt, sondern sie teilen gleichmässig. Wenn die grossen die Hochzeitskosten nehmen, so können auch die kleinen die Hochzeitskosten nehmen. Wenn aber die kleinen sagen: „wir wollen ebenso die Hochzeitskosten nehmen, wie ihr sie (bereits) genommen habet“, so hört man nicht auf sie, sondern was der Vater jenen geschenkt hat, ist geschenkt.",
+ "Hinterlässt jemand grosse und kleine Töchter, so werden die grossen nicht zusammen mit den kleinen versorgt, und die kleinen werden nicht zusammen mit den grossen ernährt, sondern sie teilen gleichmässig. Wenn die grossen die Hochzeitskosten nehmen, so können auch die kleinen die Hochzeitskosten nehmen Wenn aber die kleinen sagen: „wir wollen ebenso die Hochzeitskosten nehmen, wie ihr sie (bereits) genommen habet, so hört man nicht auf sie. Darin haben die Töchter ein Vorrecht vor den Söhnen; denn die Töchter werden neben den Söhnen unterhalten, sie werden aber nicht neben den Töchtern unterhalten."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Wenn jemand stirbt und Söhne und Töchter hinterlässt, so sollen, wenn viel Vermögen da ist, die Söhne erben und die Töchter unterhalten werden; ist wenig Vermögen da, so sollen die Töchter unterhalten werden, und die Söhne mögen an den Türen betteln. Admon sagt: (der Sohn kann sagen:) „Weil ich männlich bin, soll ich noch Schaden leiden?!“ Es sprach R. Gamliel: Mir sind die Worte Admons einleuchtend.",
+ "Wenn jemand Söhne und Töchter und einen Geschlechtslosen hinterlässt, so können diesen letztern, wenn viel Vermögen da ist, die männlichen Kinder zu den weiblichen verweisen; ist wenig Vermögen da, so verweisen ihn die weiblichen Kinder zu den männlichen. Sagt Jemand: „wenn meine Frau einen Sohn gebären wird, soll er eine Mine bekommen“, — und sie gebiert einen Sohn; so bekommt er eine Mine. (Sagt er: „wenn sie) ein Mädchen (gebären wird, soll es) zweihundert Sus bekommen“, — und sie gebiert ein Mädchen; so bekommt es zweihundert Sus. (Sagt er:) „wenn sie einen Knaben gebären wird, soll er eine Mine, wenn aber ein Mädchen, soll es zweihundert Sus bekommen“, — und sie gebiert einen Knaben und ein Mädchen; so bekommt der Knabe eine Mine, und das Mädchen bekommt zweihundert Sus. Gebiert sie einen Geschlechtslosen, so bekommt er nichts. Wenn er aber gesagt hat: „was meine Frau gebären wird, soll (so und so viel) bekommen“, so bekommt er; und wenn kein anderer Erbe als er vorhanden ist, so erbt er alles.",
+ "Wenn jemand grosse und kleine Söhne hinterlässt, und die Grossen verbessern das Vermögen, so haben sie es für die Masse verbessert Sagen sie aber: „sehet was unser Vater uns hinterlassen, wir wollen daran arbeiten und geniessen;“ so haben sie für sich selbst verbessert. Ebenso wenn eine Frau das Vermögen verbessert, so hat sie es für die Masse verbessert. Sagt sie aber: „Sehet, was mein Mann hinterlassen, ich will daran arbeiten und geniessen“; so hat sie es für sich selbst verbessert.",
+ "Wenn einer der (an der Erbschaftsmasse) Teil habenden Brüder zu einem Amte gelangt ist, so fällt sein Verdienst in die Masse. Wird einer von ihnen krank und lässt sich heilen, so muss er sich von dem Seinigen heilen lassen. Wenn einige der Brüder bei Lebzeiten des Vaters als Hochzeitsfreunde Geschenke gemacht haben, und es kommt dafür ein Gegengeschenk, so kommt dies in die Masse; denn das Hochzeitsfreund-Geschenk kann durch das Gericht erhoben werden. Wenn aber jemand seinen Nächsten Krüge mit Wein oder Öl schickt, so kann (der Ersatz) dafür nicht durch das Gericht erhoben werden, weil diese eine Wohlthätigkeits-Leistung sind.",
+ "Wenn jemand Brautgeschenke in das Haus seines Schwiegervaters schickt, wenn er auch hundert Minen dahin schickt und dort nur ein Bräutigams-Mahl um einen Denar geniesst; so können jene nicht zurückgefordert werden. Hat er daselbst kein Bräutigams-Mahl genossen, so können sie zurückgefordert werden. Hat er viele Brautgeschenke geschickt, damit sie mit ihr in das Haus ihres Mannes zurückkommen sollen; so können sie zurückgefordert werden. (Schickte er) wenige Geschenke, dass sie sich derselben in ihres Vaters Hause bediene; so können sie nicht zurückgefordert werden.",
+ "Wenn ein Kranker alle seine Güter Andern verschrieben und sich etwas Grund und Boden zurückbehalten hat, so gilt seine Schenkung; hat er sich nicht etwas Grund und Boden zurückbehalten, so gilt seine Schenkung nicht. Steht darin nicht geschrieben: „ein Kranker“, und er sagt, dass er krank war, während die andern sagen, dass er gesund war; so muss er den Beweis bringen, dass er krank war. Dies die Worte R. Meïr’s Die Weisen aber sagen: Wer von seinem Nächsten (etwas) fordert, hat den Beweis zu erbringen.",
+ "Wenn jemand seine Güter mündlich verteilt, so sagt R. Elieser: Sowohl von einem Gesunden als von einem gefährlich Kranken werden Güter, mit denen man Gewährschaft leisten kann, durch Geld, Urkunde oder Besitzergreifung erworben; die Güter aber, mit denen man nicht Gewähr leisten kann, werden nur durch Ansichziehen erworben. Da sagten sie zu ihm: Einst geschah es, dass die Mutter der Söhne Rochel’s, welche krank war, sprach: „gebet mein Oberkleid meiner Tochter!“, dieses war zwölf Minen wert, und als sie gestorben war, hat man ihre Worte erfüllt. Da sagte er zu ihnen: die Söhne Rochel’s mag ihre Mutter begraben! Die Weisen sagten: Am Schabbat sind seine Worte gültig, weil man nicht schreiben kann, aber nicht an Werktagen. R. Josua sagt: Am Schabbat hat man gesagt, wie viel mehr an Werktagen!“ Ähnlich ist (folgende Kontroverse): Man kann für einen Minderjährigen erwerben, aber nicht für einen Grossjährigen; (dies die Worte R. Elieser’s). R. Josua sagt: „Für einen Minderjährigen“ hat man gesagt, wie viel mehr für einen Grossjährigen.",
+ "Wenn über jemand und seinen Vater oder sonstigen Vererber ein Haus einstürzt, er hatte aber die Ketuba seiner Frau oder eine Schuldforderung zu bezahlen, es sagen nun die Erben des Vaters: „der Sohn ist zuerst gestorben, und dann ist der Vater gestorben“, die Gläubiger aber sagen: „der Vater ist zuerst gestorben, und dann ist der Sohn gestorben“, — so sagen Bet-Schammai: Sie teilen. Bet-Hillel aber sagen: die Güter bleiben in ihrem Rechtszustande.",
+ "Ist ein Haus über jemand und seine Frau eingestürzt, und es sagen die Erben des Mannes: „die Frau ist zuerst gestorben, und dann ist der Mann gestorben“, die Erben der Frau aber sagen: „der Mann ist zuerst gestorben, und dann ist die Frau gestorben“ — so sagen Bet Schammai: Sie teilen. Bet-Hillel aber sagen: die Güter bleiben in ihrem Rechtszustande, die Ketuba bleibt im Besitze der Erben des Mannes, das mit ihr ein- und ausgehende Vermögen bleibt im Besitze der Erben des Vaters.",
+ "Ist ein Haus über jemand und seine Mutter eingestürzt, so stimmen beide überein, dass sie teilen. Es sagte R. Akiba: Ich gestehe hierbei zu, dass die Güter in ihrem Rechtszustande bleiben. Da sprach Ben-Assai zu ihm: Wir sind über die Kontroversen bekümmert, und du willst noch das, worin sie übereinstimmen, für uns kontrovers machen."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Ein glatter Get hat die Zeugen inwendig; ein gefalteter hat die Zeugen auf seiner Rückseite. Ein glatter (Get), den die Zeugen auf seiner Rückseite unterschrieben, und ein gefalteter, den die Zeugen inwendig unterschrieben, — sie beide sind ungültig. R. Chanina, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Ein gefalteter (Get), den die Zeugen inwendig unterschrieben, ist gültig, weil man ihn glatt machen kann. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Alles nach dem Landesbrauche.",
+ "Zu einem glatten Get hat man zwei Zeugen nötig, zu einem gefalteten drei. Ein glatter (Get), in dem Ein Zeuge unterschrieben ist, und ein gefalteter, in dem zwei Zeugen unterschrieben sind, — sie beide sind ungültig. Steht darin geschrieben: „hundert Sus, welche sind zwanzig Sela‘,“ so hat er nur zwanzig (Sela‘). (Steht darin:) „hundert Sus, welche sind dreissig Sela‘ “, so hat er nur eine Mine. (Steht darin:) „Silberne Sus, welche sind — “, und es ist da verwischt, so hat er nicht weniger als zwei (Sus). (Steht:) „Silberne Sela‘, welche sind —“, und es ist da verwischt, so hat er nicht weniger als zwei (Sela). (Steht:) „Dareiken, welche sind — “, und es ist da verwischt, so hat er nicht weniger als zwei (Dareiken). Steht darin oben: „eine Mine“ und unten: „zweihundert (Sus)“, oder oben: „zweihundert (Sus)“ und unten: „eine Mine“, so geht alles nach dem Unteren. Wenn dem so ist, warum schreibt man das Obere ? Damit wenn ein Buchstabe von dem Unteren ausgelöscht würde, man aus dem Oberen sich unterrichten könne.",
+ "Man schreibt dem Manne einen Scheidebrief, wenn auch seine Frau nicht dabei ist, und der Frau eine Quittung, wenn auch ihr Mann nicht dabei ist; nur muss man sie kennen; und der Mann bezahlt den Lohn. Man schreibt dem Schuldner einen Schuldschein, wenn auch der Gläubiger nicht dabei ist; man darf (ihn) aber dem Gläubiger nicht schreiben, ausser wenn der Schuldner zugegen ist; und der Schuldner bezahlt den Lohn. Man schreibt dem Verkäufer einen Kaufbrief, wenn auch der Käufer nicht dabei ist; man schreibt (ihn) aber nicht dem Käufer, ausser wenn der Verkäufer zugegen ist; und der Käufer bezahlt den Lohn.",
+ "Man darf die Verlobungs- und Eheverträge nur mit Beider Einwilligung schreiben, und der Bräutigam zahlt den Lohn. Man darf Quotenpacht- und Übernahme-Verträge nur mit Beider Einwilligung schreiben, und der Übernehmer zahlt den Lohn. Man darf Kompromisse und jedes gerichtliche Instrument nur mit Einwilligung beider schreiben, und Beide bezahlen den Lohn. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Man schreibt für die Beiden zwei Urkunden, für den Einen besonders und für den Anderen besonders.",
+ "Wenn jemand einen Teil seiner Schuld bezahlt, den Schuldschein bei einem Dritten hinterlegen lässt, zu diesem sagt: wenn ich dir nicht von heute bis auf den und den Tag zahle, so gib ihm seinen Schuldschein wieder!“, und es kommt die Zeit heran, ohne dass er bezahlt hat; so sagt R. Jose: Er muss (ihn) wiedergeben. R. Jehuda sagt: Er darf (ihn) nicht wiedergeben.",
+ "Wenn einem ein Schuldschein ausgelöscht wurde, so stelle er darüber Zeugen, komme vor das Gericht, wo man ihm eine Bestätigung ausfertigt, (nämlich): „Dem Manne N., Sohne des N., ist sein Schuldschein von dem und dem Tage ausgelöscht worden, und die und die sind seine Zeugen“. Wer einen Teil seiner Schuld bezahlt, kann, nach R. Jehuda, (den Schuldschein) umtauschen. R. Jose sagt: Man schreibe eine Quittung. Da sagte R. Jehuda: Dieser findet sich ja dann genötigt, seine Quittung vor Mäusen zu hüten! Da erwiderte ihm R. Jose: So gebührt es sich für ihn, und es darf das Recht des Anderen nicht geschmälert werden.",
+ "Wenn zwei Brüdern, von denen einer arm und einer reich ist, der Vater ein Badehaus oder eine Ölpresse hinterlassen, so fällt, wenn er diese zum Vermieten gemacht hatte, der Mietszins in die Masse; hatte er sie aber zum eigenen Gebrauch gemacht, so kann der Reiche zum Armen sagen: „kaufe dir Sklaven, die dir das Bad bereiten!“ — „kaufe dir Oliven, komme dann und bearbeite sie in der Ölpresse!“ — Wenn zwei in einer Stadt wohnen, von denen der eine Joseph, Sohn Simon’s, und der andere (ebenfalls) Joseph, Sohn Simons, heisst; so kann einer auf den andern keinen Schuldschein hervorziehen, und es kann kein anderer auf sie einen Schuldschein hervorziehen. Findet sich bei Jemand unter dessen Urkunden: „der Schuldschein des Joseph, Sohns Simons, ist bezahlt;“ so werden die Schuldscheine Beider als bezahlt angesehen. Was sollen sie tun ? Sie mögen Namen dreier Generationen angeben, und wenn die Namen von drei Generationen gleich sind, mögen sie ein Kennzeichen angeben; haben sie auch gleiche Kennzeichen, so mögen sie (etwa) „Priester“ schreiben. Wenn jemand zu seinem Sohne sagt: „ein Schuldschein unter meinen Schuldscheinen ist bezahlt, ich weiss aber nicht welcher!“; so werden alle Schuldscheine als bezahlt angesehen. Findet sich dort aber auf einen zwei (Schuldscheine), so wird der grössere als bezahlt und der kleinere als unbezahlt angesehen. Wenn Jemand seinem Nächsten auf Gutsagung eines Bürgen Geld leiht, so kann er sich nicht (zuerst) vom Bürgen bezahlt machen. Hat er aber dabei gesagt: „unter der Bedingung, dass ich von wem ich will mich bezahlt machen könne“; so kann er sich vom Bürgen bezahlt machen. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Wenn der Schuldner Vermögen hat, so kann er sich in keinem Falle vom Bürgen bezahlt machen. Ebenso hat R Simon, Sohn Gamliels, gesagt: Wenn jemand einer Frau für ihre Ketuba Bürge ist und ihr Mann hat sie verstossen; so soll dieser sich durch ein Gelübde jeden Genuss von ihr untersagen; denn sonst würde er auf das Vermögen des anderen eine gemeinschaftliche Verabredung machen, und (hernach) seine Frau wieder heiraten.",
+ "Wenn jemand seinem Nächsten gegen Schuldverschreibung Geld leiht, so kann er es auch von unterworfenen Gütern einziehen; (wenn nur) vor Zeugen, so kann er es (nur) von freien Gütern einziehen. Zeigt er gegen jemand dessen Handschrift vor, dass er ihm Geld schuldig sei, so kann er es von freien Gütern einziehen. Wenn jemand nach der Zeugen-Unterschrift in der Urkunde als Bürge gezeichnet hat, so kann man (nur) von dessen freien Gütern die Schuld einziehen. Einst kam ein solcher Fall vor R. Ismaël, und er sagte: Man kann (nur) von den freien Gütern die Schuld einziehen. Da sprach Ben Nanos zu ihm: Er kann sie weder von den unterworfenen noch von den freien Gütern einziehen. Jener fragte ihn: Warum? Er erwiderte ihm: Siehe, Jemand quält Einen auf der Strasse, wenn ihn nun ein anderer trifft und zu ihm sagt: „lasse ihn, ich werde dir zahlen!“, — so ist doch dieser frei, weil der Gläubiger nicht im Vertrauen auf ihn Jenem geliehen hat. Was heisst denn ein Bürge, der pflichtig ist? (Wenn er sagt:) „Leihe ihm, und ich werde Dir zahlen!“ — da ist er verpflichtet, weil er Jenem im Vertrauen auf ihn geliehen hat. Da sagte R. Ismael: Wer weise werden will, beschäftige sich mit dem Rechte über Geldangelegenheiten, denn es gibt keine Hauptlehre in der Thora, die wichtiger ist als dieses, da dies einer sprudelnden Quelle gleicht. Wer sich aber mit dem Rechte über Geldangelegenheiten beschäftigen will, der bediene Simon Ben Nanos."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..657ac1edf3858f68efc43feafcb0a0ce11207d10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json
@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Batra",
+ "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/",
+ "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 1.0,
+ "license": "CC-BY",
+ "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא בתרא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "If two partners wish to make a partition in a courtyard they build the wall in the middle. In a place where the custom is to build of unshaped stones, or of hewn stones, or of half-bricks, or of whole bricks, so they should build it everything is according to local custom. [If the wall is made of] unshaped stones this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] three handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] hewn stones this one supplies [from his property] two and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] two and a half handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] half-bricks this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] two handbreadths. [If the wall is made of] whole bricks this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths, and this one supplies [from his property] one and a half handbreadths.",
+ "The same is true with a garden: in a place where the custom is to build a fence, they can obligate him to do so. However, in a valley, where it is not customary to build a fence, they cannot obligate him to do so. But if he wants to [build a fence] he must gather into his own portion and build, and he puts a finishing on the outside of the wall. Therefore if the wall falls, the place and the stones belong to him. If they acted with each other’s consent, they should build the wall in the middle and put a finishing on both sides. Therefore if the wall falls, the place and the stones belong to them both.",
+ "If a man’s land surrounded his fellow’s land on three sides, and he fenced it on the first and the second and the third sides, they do not obligate him [to share in the costs]. Rabbi Yose says: “If he rose and built a fence on the fourth side, they obligate him to share in all of the costs.”",
+ "If the wall of a courtyard fell down they obligate each of the partners to help in building it up to a height of four cubits. He is presumed to have paid [his share] unless the other brings proof that he has not paid. [If the fence was built] four cubits or higher, they do not obligate him [to help in building it.] If [the one who did not contribute] built another wall near it, even if he did not put a roof upon it, they obligate him to share in all of the costs. He is presumed not to have paid [his share] unless he brings proof that he has.",
+ "They compel [a partner in a courtyard to contribute to] the building of a gate-house and a door for the courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Not all courtyards are fit for a gate-house.” They compel [a resident of the town to contribute to] the building of a wall for the town and double doors and a bolt. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Not every town is fit for a wall.” How long must a man dwell in a town to count as one of the men of the town? Twelve months. If he has purchased a dwelling place he immediately counts as one of the men of the town.",
+ "They do not divide a courtyard until there is four cubits for this [partner] and four cubits for this [partner]. Nor [do they divide up] a field until it has nine kavs for this [partner] and nine kavs for this [partner]. Rabbi Judah says: “Until it has nine half-kavs for this [partner] and nine half-kavs for this [partner]. Nor [do they divide up] a garden until it has a half-kav for this [partner] and a half-kav for this [partner]. Rabbi Akiva says: “A quarter-kav.” Nor [do they divide up] an eating hall, a watch-tower, a dovecote, a cloak, a bathhouse, or an olive-press until there is sufficient for this [partner] and for this [partner]. This is the general rule: whatever can be divided and still be called by the same name, they divide; otherwise they do not divide. When is this so? When they do not both wish [to divide the property]. However, if both wish they can divide it even if it is smaller. And with regards to the Sacred Books, they may not be divided even if both are willing."
+ ],
+ [
+ "One may not dig a cistern near his fellow’s cistern; Nor may he dig a ditch, cave, water-channel, or laundry pool unless it is three handbreadths away from his fellow’s wall, and he must plaster it with lime. They distance piles of olive refuse, manure, salt, lime or stones three handbreadths from his fellow’s wall, and he plasters it with lime. They distance seeds, and a plow and urine three handbreadths from the wall. And they distance the mill [from the wall]: three [handbreadths] from the lower millstone and four [handbreadths] from the upper millstone. And [they distance] the oven [from the wall]: three from the belly of the oven and four from the rim of the oven.",
+ "One may not set up an oven inside a house unless there is a space of four cubits above it. If he sets it up in the upper room, the flooring beneath it must be three handbreadths deep, or for a stove one handbreadth. And if it causes damage [to the floor] he must pay for the damage caused. Rabbi Shimon says: “They only mentioned these measurements so that if the object caused damage he would be exempt.”",
+ "One may not open a bakery or a dyer’s shop under his fellow’s storehouse, nor a cattle stall. In truth, they have permitted these things under a winestore but not a cattle stall. A man may protest against [another that opens] a shop within the courtyard and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of them that go in and out.” One who makes utensils, should go outside and sell them in the market. But none may protest and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of the hammer” or “because of the noise of the mill-stones” or “because of the noise of children.”",
+ "If one’s wall was adjacent to his friend’s wall he may not build another wall adjoining it unless it is at a distance of four cubits. And [if he builds a wall opposite his friend’s] windows, whether it is higher or lower than them or level with them, it may not be within four cubits.",
+ "A person’s ladder must not be kept within four cubits of [his neighbor’s] dovecote, lest a marten (a small animal that eats doves) should jump in. His wall may not be built four cubits from [his neighbor’s] roof-gutter, so that the other can set up his ladder [to clean it out]. A dovecote may not be kept within fifty cubits of a town, and none may build a dovecote in his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. Rabbi Judah says: Four kor’s space of ground, which is the length of a pigeon’s flight. But if he had bought it [and it was built already in that place] and there was only a quarter-kab’s space of ground, he has a right to the dovecote.",
+ "If a young pigeon is found within fifty cubits it belongs to the owner of the dovecote; but if it is found beyond fifty cubits it belongs to who finds it. If it is found between two dovecotes: if it is nearer to this one than it belongs him [that owns this dovecote]; and if it is nearer to the other, it belongs to him [that owns the other dovecote]; and if it is at a like distance from either, they share it.",
+ "A tree may not be grown within a distance of twenty five cubits from the town, or fifty cubits if it is a carob tree or a sycamore tree. Abba Shaul says: “Any tree that bears no fruit may not be grown within a distance of fifty cubits.” If the town was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given; if the tree was there first it shall be cut down and compensation given. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given.",
+ "A permanent threshing floor may not be made within fifty cubits of the town. One may not make a permanent threshing floor within his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. And he must distance it from his fellow's plants and ploughed land so that it will not cause damage.",
+ "Animal carcasses, graves and tanneries must be distanced fifty cubits from a town. A tannery may be set up only to the east of a town. Rabbi Akiva says: “It may be set up on any side save the west, and it must be distanced fifty cubits [from the town].",
+ "A pool for soaking flax must be distanced from vegetables, and leeks from onions, and mustard plant from bees. Rabbi Yose permits mustard plant.",
+ "A tree may not be grown within twenty five cubits of a cistern, or within fifty cubits if it is a carob or a sycamore, whether it is higher or on the same level. If the cistern was there first the tree shall be cut down and compensation given. If the tree was there first it shall not be cut down. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall not be cut down. Rabbi Yose says: “Even if the cistern was there before the tree it should not be cut down, since this one dug within his own domain and the other planted within his own domain.”",
+ "A person may not plant a tree near another’s field unless it is four cubits away, no matter whether it be a vine or any other kind of tree. If there was a wall between, each may plant up to the wall on either side. If its roots entered within the other’s property, the other may cut them away to a depth of three handbreadths so that they shall not hinder the plough. If he dug a cistern, trench or cave, he may cut them away as far down as he digs, and the wood shall belong to him.",
+ "If a tree stretches into another’s field, he may cut it away as far as is reached by an ox-goad held over the plough, or, if it is a carob or sycamore, [he may cut it away] according to the plumb line’s measure. All trees that stretch over irrigated fields may be cut away according to the plumb line’s measure. Abba Shaul says: “All trees that bear no fruit may be cut away according to the plumb line’s measure.”",
+ "If a tree stretches into the public domain enough must be cut away to allow a camel and its rider pass by. Rabbi Judah says: “A camel laden with flax or bundles of branches.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Every tree [must be cut away] according to the plumb line’s measure, because of impurity."
+ ],
+ [
+ "The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, dovecotes, bath-houses, olive-presses, irrigated fields and slaves and anything which continually produces a yield is three complete years. The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for a field irrigated by rain water is three years and they need not be completed. Rabbi Yishmael says: “Three months during the first year, and three months during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes eighteen months.” Rabbi Akiva says: “One month during the first year and one month during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes fourteen months.” Rabbi Yishmael said: “When does this apply? With regards to a sown field, but with tree plantation, if he brought in his produce (grapes), collected the olives and gathered in his fig harvest, this counts as three years.”",
+ "There are three regions with regards to possession: Judea, beyond the Jordan and the Galilee. If the owner was in Judea and another took possession [of his property] in the Galilee; Or if he was in the Galilee and another took possession [of his property] in Judea, such possession does not demonstrate ownership, until he is in the same region. Rabbi Judah said: “They have specified a period of three years so that if the owner was in Spain and another took possession [of his property] during one year, they could make it known to the owner during the next year and he could return in the third year.”",
+ "An act of possession without which there is no claim [on the ownership of the property] is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. How is this so? If he said to him: “What are you doing on my property? And the other answered: “No one ever said anything to me”, this is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. [If he said to him]: “You sold it to me”, “You gave it to me as a gift”, “Your father sold it to me”, “Your father gave it to me as a gift”, this is valid possession [to establish ownership]. He who holds possession [for three years] due to inheritance [from the previous owner], does not need to make a claim. Craftsmen, partners, sharecroppers and guardians cannot establish ownership through possession. A man cannot establish ownership through possession of his wife’s property, nor may a wife establish ownership through possession of her husband’s property, nor a father of his son’s property, nor a son of his father’s property. When is this so [that one needs three years to establish ownership]? When the person attempts to acquire the land through possession. But, when the property was given as a gift, or when brothers shared a piece of their inheritance, or when one claimed title by possession to the property of a convert [who died without inheritors], then if the claimant has shut in, walled up or broken down anything, this counts as securing ownership through possession.",
+ "If two testify that he has had the use [of property] during three years and they are found to be false witnesses, they must make full restitution to the owner. If two [false witnesses] testify of the first year, two of the second, and two of the third, they divide up the costs of restitution between them. If three brothers testify and another is included with them, they offer three different acts of testimony, but their words count as a single act of testimony when the evidence is proved false.",
+ "What are usages which are effective in establishing title through possession and what are usages which are not effecting in establishing title through possession? If a man put a beast in a courtyard, or an oven or stoves or mill-stones, or reared fowl [in a courtyard] or put his manure in a courtyard, this is not effective in establishing title through possession. But if he built for his beast a partition ten hand-breadths high, so too for an oven, so too for a stove, so too for a mill-stone, [or] he brought fowl inside the house, or prepared for his manure a place three hand-breadths deep or three hand-breadths high, this is effective in establishing title through possession.",
+ "A gutter spout cannot cause title through possession [so that the spout may still be moved] but title through possession may be claimed to its place [so that the place must be left for its present purpose]. A gutter can give title through possession. An Egyptian ladder cannot give title through possession but a Tyrian ladder can. An Egyptian window cannot give title through possession but a Tyrian window can. What is an Egyptian window? Any through which a man’s head may not enter. Rabbi Judah says: “If it has a frame, even though a man’s head cannot enter through it, it can give title through possession.” A projection, if it extends a handbreadth or more can give title through possession, and the other [into whose premises it projects] can protest against it. But if it is less than a handbreadth it cannot give title through possession and the other cannot protest against it.",
+ "One may not make a window to open into a jointly held courtyard. If he bought a house in another [and adjoining] courtyard he may not open it into a jointly held courtyard. If he built an upper room over his house he may not make it open into the jointly held courtyard; But, if he wishes, he may build another room within his house or build an upper room over his house and make it open into his own house. In a jointly held courtyard a man may not build a door directly opposite another’s door, or a window directly opposite another’s window. If the window was small he may not make it larger; if it was a single window he may not make it into two. But in the public domain he may open a door opposite another’s door, or a window opposite another’s window. If the window was small he may make it larger; if it was a single window he may make it into two.",
+ "One may not hollow out a space underneath the public domain [such as] cisterns, trenches or caves. Rabbi Eliezer permits it if it is such that a wagon loaded with stones can [safely] go over it. Projections and balconies may not be built into the public domain; but if a man wishes to build a [projection or balcony] he may withdraw [his wall] within his own domain and build out from it. If he bought a courtyard in which were already projections and balconies, his right to maintain them may not be disputed."
+ ],
+ [
+ "If a man sold a house, he has not sold its side chambers, even though they open into the house, nor the room that is behind [the house], nor the roof, if it has a railing more than ten hand-breadths high. Rabbi Judah says: “If the roof as entrance shaped like a door, even if the railing is not ten hand-breadths high, it is not sold.”",
+ "Nor [has he sold] the cistern or the cellar, even though he had written in the deed of sale, “the depth and height”. And he [the seller] must buy himself a path [from the new owner to reach the cellar or cistern], according to Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say: “He need not buy himself a path.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said to him, “Excepting these [the cistern or cellar]” that he need not buy himself a path. If he sold them [the cellar or cistern] to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He need not buy himself a path.” But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a path.”",
+ "If a man sold a house he has sold also the door, but not the key. He has sold a permanent mortar but not a movable one. He has sold the convex millstone (the lower, usually fixed stone) but not the concave one. Nor [has he sold] the oven or the stove. But if he had said: “[I am selling to you] the house and all that is in it, these are also sold.”",
+ "If a man sold a courtyard, he has also sold its houses, cisterns, trenches and caves, but not the movable property. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it” all of these are also sold. But in neither case has he sold the bath-house, or the olive press that are in it. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If a man sold a courtyard, he has sold only the air (the open spaces) of the courtyard.",
+ "If a man sold an olive press he has sold also the vat, the grindstone, and the posts, but he has not sold the pressing-boards, the wheel or the beam. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. Rabbi Eliezer said: “If a man sold an olive press he has sold the beam also.”",
+ "If a man sold a bath house, he has not sold the planks or the benches or the curtains. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. In neither case has he sold the water containers or the stores of wood.",
+ "If a man sold a town, he has also sold the houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, bath houses, dovecotes, olive presses, and irrigated fields, but not the movable property. But if he had said: “It and all that is in it”, even if cattle and slaves were in it, all of these are sold. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If a man sold a town he has also sold the town watchman.”",
+ "If a man sold a field he has also sold the stones that are necessary to it, and the canes in a vineyard that are necessary to it, and its unreaped crop, and a partition of reed which covers less than a quarter-kav’s space of ground, and the watchman’s hut if it was fastened down with mortar, and ungrafted carob trees and young sycamores.",
+ "But [one who sold a field] has not sold the stones that are not necessary to it or the canes in a vineyard that are not necessary to it or the produce that is already picked from the ground. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it” all of these are sold also. But in neither case has he sold any partition of reeds that covers a quarter-kav’s space of ground, or the watchman’s hut if it was not fastened down with mortar, or grafted carob trees or cropped sycamores, or any cistern or winepress or dovecote, whether they are lying waste or in use. And [the seller] must purchase [from the buyer] a way thereto, according to Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: “He need not.” And Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he had said, “Excepting these”, he need not buy himself a way thereto. If he had sold them (the cistern, winepress or dovecote) to another, Rabbi Akiva says: “He [that bought them] need not buy himself a way thereto. But the Sages say: “He must buy himself a way thereto.” When is this so? With regards to he that sells his field. But if he gives it as a gift, he gives everything that is in it. If brothers who divided [an inheritance] came into possession of a field, they come into possession of everything that is in it. If a man secured title by possession of the property of a convert, and secured title by possession of the [convert’s] field, he secures title to everything that is in it. If a man dedicated a field [to the Temple] he has dedicated everything in it. Rabbi Shimon says: “If a man dedicated a field, he has dedicated only the grafted carob trees and cropped sycamores.”"
+ ],
+ [
+ "If a man sold a ship, he has also sold the mast, the sail, the anchor, and all the means of steering it. But he has not sold the slaves, the packing-bags, or the lading. But if he had said, “It and all that is in it”, all these are sold also. If a man sold a wagon, he has not sold the mules, and if he sold the mules, he has not sold the wagon. If he sold the yoke, he has not sold the oxen, and if he sold the oxen, he has not sold the yoke. Rabbi Judah says: “The price tells all. How is this so? If one said to him, “Sell me your yoke for 200 zuz, it is known that no yoke costs 200 zuz.” But the sages say: “The price is not proof.”",
+ "If a man sold a donkey he has not sold its trappings. Nahuma of Madi says: “He has sold its trappings.” Rabbi Judah says: “Sometimes they are sold and sometimes they are not sold. How is this so? If the donkey was before him with its trappings on it and he said, ‘Sell me this donkey of yours’, the trappings are sold (with the donkey). If he said, ‘Sell me that donkey of yours’, the trappings are not sold.”",
+ "If a man sold a donkey he has sold its foal. If a man sold a cow he has not sold its calf. If he sold a dungheap, he has sold the dung on it. If he sold a cistern, he has sold the water in it. If he sold a bee-hive he has sold the bees. If he sold a dovecote he has sold the pigeons. If a man bought the fruit of a dovecote from his fellow he must let go the first pair that are hatched. [If he bought], the fruit of a beehive he may take three swarms and then [the seller] may make the rest sterile. [If he bought] honeycombs he must leave two honeycombs. [If he bought] olive trees to cut down the branches, he must leave two shoots.",
+ "If a man bought two trees in his fellow’s field, he has not bought the ground [in which they grow]. Rabbi Meir says: “He has bought the ground”. When they grow (branches), he (the seller) may not trim them. What comes up from the stem belongs to him (the buyer) but what comes up from the roots belongs to the seller. And if they die, the ground is not his [to replant new trees]. If he bought three trees, he has bought the ground [between them]. When they grow he may trim them, And what comes up whether from the stem or from the roots belongs to him (the buyer). And if they die the ground is his.",
+ "He who has sold the head of a large animal, has not sold the feet. If he sold the feet, he has not sold the head. If he sold the lungs he has not sold the liver. If he sold the liver he has not sold the lungs. But in the case of a small animal: If he sold the head he has sold the feet. If he sold the feet he has not sold the head. If he sold the lungs he has sold the liver. If he sold the liver he has not sold the lungs.",
+ "There are four rules with regards to those who sell:If one has sold good wheat and it turns out to be bad, the buyer can retract. If he sold bad wheat and it is found to be good, the seller can retract. [But if one sold] bad wheat and it is found to be bad, or good wheat and it is found to be good, neither may retract. [If one has sold] dark wheat and it turned out to be white; Or white and it turned out to be dark; Or [if he sold] olive wood and it turned out to be sycamore wood; Or sycamore wood and it turned out to be olive wood; Or [if he sold] wine and it turned out to be vinegar; Or vinegar and it turned out to be wine; Either of them may retract.",
+ "If a man sold produce to his fellow and the buyer drew it towards him but did not measure it, [the buyer] has acquired [the produce]. If [the seller] had measured it but [the buyer] did not draw it towards him, he has not acquired [the produce]. If [the buyer] is clever he will rent the place [in which the produce is located]. If a man bought flax from his fellow he has not acquired it until he has moved it from one place to another. If it was still attached to the ground, and he plucked any small quantity of it, he has acquired possession.",
+ "If a man sold wine or oil to his fellow, and its value rose or fell, if [the price rose or fell] before the measure was filled up, it belongs to the seller, [and he may refuse to sell except at the higher price]. But if [the price rose or fell] after the measure was filled up, it belongs to the buyer [and he may refuse to buy except at the lower price]. If there was a middleman between them, and the jar broke, it is broken to [the loss of] the middleman. [After emptying the measure] the seller must let three more drops drip [for the buyer]. If he then turned the measure over and drained it off, what flows out belongs to the seller. The shopkeeper is not obligated to let three more drops drip. Rabbi Judah says: “[Only] on the eve of Shabbath as it becomes dark is he exempt.”",
+ "If a man sent his child to a shopkeeper with a pondion (a coin) in his hand and he measured him out an issar’s (a coin worth half a pondion) worth of oil and gave him an issar in change and the child broke the flask and lost the issar, the shopkeeper is liable. Rabbi Judah declares him exempt, since the father sent the child for this purpose. And the Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if the flask was in the child’s hand, and the shopkeeper measured the oil into it, the shopkeeper is exempt.",
+ "The wholesaler must clean out his measures once every thirty days and the householder once every twelve months. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “The rule is just the opposite.” The shopkeeper must clean out his measures twice in the week and polish his weights once a week and clean out his scales after every weighing.",
+ "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “When is this so (that one needs to clean out measures)? With regards to liquid measures, but with regards to dry measures it is not necessary. [And a shopkeeper] must let the scales sink down a handbreadth [to the buyer’s advantage]. If he gave him an exact measure, he must give him his overweight, a tenth for liquid measures and a twentieth for dry measures. Where the custom is to measure with small measures they should not measure with large measures and where the custom is to measure with large measures they should not measure with small measures. Where the custom is to smooth down [what is in the measure] they should not heap it up, and [where the custom is] to heap it up, they should not smooth it down."
+ ],
+ [
+ "If a man sold grain to his fellow [and after it was sown] it did not sprout, even if it was flax-seed he is not liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If it was garden-seeds, which are not used for food, he is liable.”",
+ "If a man sold grain to his fellow, the buyer must agree to accept a quarter-kab of refuse with every seah. [If he bought] figs he must agree to accept ten that are eaten by worms for every one hundred. [If he bought] a cellar of wine, he must agree to accept ten jars gone sour in every one hundred. [If he bought] jars in Sharon, he must agree to accept ten which are not fully dry (and therefore are more easily broken) in one hundred.",
+ "If a man sold wine to his fellow and it turned sour he is not responsible. But if it was known [to the seller] that his wine would [soon] turn sour, this is a mistaken purchase. If he had said to him, “I am selling you spiced wine”, he is responsible for its remaining [good] until Shavuoth. [If he said] it is old wine, it must be from last year’s. [If he said] it is vintage old wine, it must be from the year before last.",
+ "If a man sold his fellow a place to build him a house, so, too, if a man contracted with his fellow to build him a bridal-house for his son, or a widow’s house for his daughter, he must build it four cubits by six cubits (80 inches x 120 inches), according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says: “This is a cattle-shed”. He who wants to build a cattle-shed, should build it four cubits by six. A small house six by eight (120 x. A large house eight by ten (160 x. An eating hall ten by ten (200 x. The height should be [the sum] of half its length and half its breadth. Proof of the matter is the sanctuary. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Should all [houses] be according to the building of the Sanctuary?”",
+ "If he had a cistern behind his fellow’s house, he may go in and out only at the time when others are accustomed to go in and out. And he may not bring in his cattle and let them drink from his cistern, rather he must draw water and let them drink outside. He and the owner of the house should each make themselves a lock.",
+ "If he had a garden behind his fellow’s garden, he may go in and out only at the time when others are accustomed to go in and out. And he may not bring in merchants, or enter through it into another field. [The owner of] the outer garden may plant seeds on the path. But, if with the other’s consent, he has been given a path at the side [of the other’s garden] he may go in and out when he wishes. And he may bring in merchants, but he may not enter through it into another field. And neither of them has the right to plant seeds on the path.",
+ "If a public path passed through a man’s field and he took it and gave them [another path] by the side of the field, what he has given he has given and what he has taken for himself does not become his. A private path is four cubits. A public path is sixteen cubits. The king’s path has no prescribed measure. The path to a grave has no prescribed measure. The halting places, according to the judges of Tzippori, should be four kab’s space of ground.",
+ "If a man sold to his fellow a place in which to make a tomb, so, too, if a man was commissioned by his fellow to make a tomb, he must make the inside of the vault four cubits by six, and open within it eight niches, three on this side, three on that side, and two opposite [the doorway]. The niches must be four cubits long, seven handbreadths high, and six handbreadths wide. Rabbi Shimon says: “He must make the inside of the vault four cubits by eight, and open within it thirteen niches, four on this side, four on that side, three opposite [the doorway] and one to the right of the doorway and one to the left. He must make a courtyard at the opening of the vault, six cubits by six, space enough for the bier and its bearers. And he may open within it two vaults, one on either side. Rabbi Shimon says: “Four, one on each of its sides.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “All depends on the nature of the rock.”"
+ ],
+ [
+ "If a man said to his fellow, “I will sell you a kor’s space of soil”, and it contained crevices ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high, these are not included in the measurement. But if they were less than this they are included. If he said to him, “About a kor’s space of soil”, even if it contained crevices deeper than ten handbreadths or rocks higher than ten handbreadths, they are included in the measurement.",
+ "[If he said, “I will sell you] a kor’s space of soil as measured by a rope”, and he gave him less, the buyer may reduce the price; and if he gave him more, the buyer must give it back. But if he said, “Whether less or more”, even if he gave the buyer a quarter-kab’s space less in every seah’s space, or a quarter kab’s space more in every seah’s space, it becomes his; if [the error] was more than this, a reckoning must be made. What does he (the buyer) give him back? Its value in money; but if the seller wants, he gives him back the land. And why did they say that he could give back its value in money? To strengthen the power of the seller, for if, in a field [containing a kor’s space] there would still have remained to him nine kab’s space, or, in a garden, a half-kab’s space, or according to Rabbi Akiva a quarter-kab’s space, the buyer must give back to him land. And not only must he give back the quarter-kab’s space, but all of the surplus.",
+ "[If he said], “I will sell you [a piece of land] as measured by the rope, whether it is less or more” the condition “whether it is less or more” makes void the condition “as measured by the rope”. [And if he said], “Be it less or more, as measured by the rope”, the condition “as measured by the rope” makes void the condition “be it less or more”, according to Ben Nanas. [If he said, I will sell you a piece of land] by its marks and its boundaries”, and the difference was less than a sixth, the sale stands. If it was as much a sixth the buyer may reduce the price.",
+ "If a man said to his fellow, “I will sell you half of the field”, it must be divided between them into portions of equal value, and the buyer takes half of the field [which the other allots to him]. [If he said, “I will sell you] the southern half”, the field must be divided between them into portions of equal value, and the buyer takes the southern half. He accepts responsibility for [providing the ground] for the dividing wall and the large and small ditches. How large is the large ditch? Six handbreadths. And the small ditch? Three handbreadths."
+ ],
+ [
+ "There are those who inherit and bequeath, there are those who inherit but do not bequeath, there are those who bequeath but do not inherit and there are those who neither bequeath nor inherit.These inherit and bequeath: a father as to his sons and sons as to their father and brothers from the same father, these inherit and bequeath. A man as to mother, and a man as to his wife, and the sons of sisters, inherit but do not bequeath. A woman as to her sons, and a wife as to her husband, and brothers of the mother, bequeath but do not inherit. And brothers from the same mother [but not father] neither inherit nor bequeath.",
+ "This is the order of inheritance: “If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8) the son precedes the daughter, and all the son’s offspring precede the daughter. The daughter precedes the brothers and the daughters’ offspring precede the brothers.’ Brothers precede the father’s brothers and the brothers’ offspring precede the father’s brothers. This is the general rule: whosoever has precedence in inheritance, his offspring also has precedence. The father has precedence over all his offspring.",
+ "The daughters of Zelophehad took three portions of the inheritance (of the Land of Israel): The portion of their father who was of them that came out of Egypt; And his portion among his brothers from the property of Hepher (Zelophehad’s father); And, in that he (Zelophehad) was the first-born, he took a double portion.",
+ "The son and the daughter are alike concerning inheritance, save that the [firstborn] son takes a double portion of the father’s property but he does not take a double portion of the mother’s property. And the daughters receive maintenance from the father’s property but not from the mother’s property.",
+ "If a man says, “So and so, my firstborn son, shall not receive a double portion”, or “So and so, my son, shall not inherit with his brothers”, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. If a man apportioned his property to his sons by word of mouth, and gave much to one and little to another, or made them equal to the firstborn, his words are valid. But if he had said [that it should be so] “by inheritance”, he has said nothing. If he had written down, whether at the beginning or in the middle or at the end [of his will] that it should be as a gift, his words are valid. If a man said, “So and so a man shall inherit from me” and he has a daughter; or “My daughter shall inherit from me”, and he has a son, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. Rabbi Johanan ben Baroka says: “If he said [that so and so shall inherit from me] of one that was qualified to inherit from him, his words are valid, but if of one that was not qualified to inherit from him his words do not remain valid.” If a man wrote away his property to others and passed over his sons, what he has done is done, but the Sages are not comfortable with it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If has sons did not behave properly, it should be counted to his credit.”",
+ "If a man said, “This is my son”, he is believed. If [he said], “This is my brother”, he is not believed, yet the other may join him in his portion. If he died the property returns to its place. If he inherited property from elsewhere the other’s brothers inherit it together with him. If a man died and a testament was found bound to his thigh, this counts as nothing. But if [he had delivered it and] through it granted title to another, whether of his heirs or of those who are not his heirs, his words are valid.",
+ "If a man writes over his property to his son, he must write, “From today and after my death”, according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says, “He need not do so.” If a man writes over his property to his son to be his after his death, the father cannot sell it since it is written over to the son, and the son cannot sell it since it is in the possession of the father. If his father sold the property, it is sold [only] until he dies; if the son sold the property, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests the crops and gives them to whomever he wishes, and what he has left harvested belongs to [all] his heirs. If he left elder sons and younger sons, the elder sons may not take care of themselves [from the estate] at the expense of the younger sons, nor may the younger sons claim maintenance at the cost of the elder sons, rather they all share alike. If the elder sons married [at the expense of the estate] so too the younger sons may marry [at the expense of the estate]. If the younger sons said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given.",
+ "If he left elder daughters and younger daughters, the elder daughters may not care for themselves at the cost of the younger daughters, nor may the younger daughters claim maintenance at the cost of the elder daughters, rather they all share alike. If the elder daughters married [and took each her dowry from the common inheritance] so too the younger daughters may marry [and take each a dowry from the common inheritance]. If the younger daughters said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given. A greater stringency applies to daughters than to sons, since daughters can claim maintenance at the cost of the sons, but they cannot claim maintenance at the cost of the [other daughters]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "If a man died and left sons and daughters, and the property was great, the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance. But if the property was small the daughters receive maintenance and the sons go begging at people’s doors. Admon says: “The son may say, ‘Must I suffer a loss because I am a male’”. Rabban Gamaliel says: “I approve of Admon’s opinion.”",
+ "If a man left sons and daughters and one that was of doubtful gender, if the property was great the males may push him (the one of doubtful gender) onto the females; if the property was small the females may thrust him onto the males. If a man said, “If my wife shall bear a male he shall be given 100 zuz”, and she had a male, he receives 100 zuz. [If he said, “If my wife shall bear a] female she shall be given 200 zuz”, and she had a female, she receives 200 zuz. [If he said, “If may wife shall bear a] male he shall be given 100 zuz and if a female 200 zuz” and she had a male and a female, the male receives 100 zuz and the female 200 zuz. If she had one of doubtful gender, he does not take. But if he said, “Whatsoever my wife shall bear shall be given [such an amount], he receives. If he [the one of doubtful gender] was the only heir, he inherits everything.",
+ "If a man left elder sons and younger sons, and the elder sons improved the property, they improve it to the common benefit. If they said, “See, what our father has left us, lo, we will work and from that we will eat”, they improve it to their own benefit. So, too, if a woman (a widow) improved the property, she improves it to the common benefit. If she had said, “See, what my husband left to me, lo, I will work and from that I will eat”, she improves it to her own benefit.",
+ "If brothers were partners and one of them fell into a public office, it falls to the common benefit. If one [of them] got sick and needed healing, his healing is at his own expense. If certain of the brothers in their father’s lifetime had made a present as groomsmen [at their father’s expense] and [after his death] the present was restored to them, it is restored to the common benefit, for the groomsmen’s gift [counts as a loan] and can be recovered in a court of law. But if [one of the brothers in his father’s lifetime] sent his fellow jars of wine or jars of oil, they cannot be recovered through a court of law, since they count [not as a loan but] as a charitable deed.",
+ "If a man sent betrothal gifts to his father-in-law’s house, and he sent there 100 maneh (10,000 dinar) and he ate a betrothal meal of but one dinar, [and he afterward divorced his wife] they (the betrothal gifts) are not recoverable. But if he did not eat the betrothal meal, they are recoverable. If he sent many betrothal gifts in order for them to return with her to her his house [when he marries her], they are recoverable. If he sent few betrothal gifts which were to be used in her father’s house, they are not recoverable.",
+ "If a man who lies dying wrote over his property to others [as a gift] and kept back any land whatsoever, his gift remains valid [even should he not die]. If he did not keep back any land whatsoever, his gift does not remain valid [if he should not die]. If it was not written in the document, “who lies dying”, but he said that [he had written the document] while he lay dying and they (those who received the gift) said that he was healthy [when he wrote the document], he must bring proof that he had been dying, according to Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: “He who makes a claim against his fellow bears the burden of proof.”",
+ "If a man divided his property orally, Rabbi Eliezer says: “Whether he was healthy or at the point of death, property for which there is security (land) can be acquired only by money, by a document or by possession; property for which there is no security (movable objects) can be acquired only by being drawn [into the possession of the one acquiring]. They (the Sages) said to him: “It once happened that the mother of the sons of Rokhel was sick and said, ‘Give my veil to my daughter’, and it was worth twelve hundred maneh (1,200 dinars) and she died and they fulfilled her words. He said to them: “May their mother bury the sons of Rokhel.” The Sages say: “On a Sabbath his words remain valid, since he cannot write, but not on a weekday.” Rabbi Joshua says: “If they have stated this rule on the Sabbath, how much more so on a weekday.” Similarly, others may acquire possession on behalf of a minor, but not on behalf of an adult. Rabbi Joshua says: “If they have stated this rule with regards to a minor, how much more so does the rule apply to an adult.",
+ "If the house fell down on a man and his father, or upon a man and any from whom he inherits, and he was liable for his wife’s ketubah or to a creditor: the father’s heirs say, “The son died first and the father died afterward”, and the creditors say, “The father died first and the son died afterward.” The School of Shammai says: “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says: “The property remains in its former status [in the hands of those who inherit the father].”",
+ "If the house fell down on a man and his wife, the husband’s heirs say, “The wife died first and the husband died afterward” and the wife’s heirs say, “The husband died first and the wife died afterward”. The School of Shammai says: “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says: “The property remains in its former status the Ketubah to the husband’s heirs and the property that comes in and goes out with her to her father’s heirs.”",
+ "If the house fell down on a man and his mother, they (the Schools of Shammai and Hillel) agree that the they split the property. Rabbi Akiva said: “I agree here, that the property remains in its former status.” Ben Azzai said to him: “We already are distressed over those things upon which there is disagreement, and you are coming to bring disagreement on the points in which they agree.”"
+ ],
+ [
+ "A simple document has the signatures within (at the bottom of the page); a sewn document has signatures behind [each fold]. If in a simple document its witnesses signed behind, or if in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, they are invalid. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: “If in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, it is valid, since it can be made into a simple document.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Everything should follow local custom.”",
+ "A simple document requires two witnesses; a sewn document requires three. If a simple document has only one witness, or a sewn document has only two, they are both invalid. If it was written in a debt document: “100 zuz which are 20 sela (=80”, he (the creditor) can claim only 20 sela; if [it was written] “100 zuz which are 30 sela (=120” he (the creditor) can claim only 100 zuz. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver zuzim which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two zuzim. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver selas which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two selas. [If there was written in a debt document] “Darics which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two darics. If at the top was written a “maneh (100” and at the bottom “200 zuz”, or “200 zuz” at the top and “maneh” at the bottom, everything goes according to the bottom amount. If so, why is the figure written at the top of the document? So that, if a letter of the lower figure was erased, they can learn from the upper figure.",
+ "They may write out a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, or a receipt (stating that the husband has paid the ketubah debt) for the wife even if her husband is not with her, provided that he (the scribe) knows them. And the husband pays the (scribe’s) fee. They may write out a document for the debtor even though the creditor is not with him, but they may not write out a document for the creditor unless the debtor is with him. And the debtor pays the (scribe’s) fee. They may write out a deed of sale for the seller although the buyer is not with him, but they may not write it out for the buyer unless the seller is with him. And the buyer pays the (scribe’s) fee.",
+ "They may not write documents of betrothal or marriage except with the consent of both parties. And the bridegroom pays the (scribe’s) fee. They may not write documents of tenancy and sharecropping except with the consent of both parties. And the tenant pays the (scribe’s) fee. They may not write documents of arbitration or any document drawn up before a court except with the consent of both parties. And both parties pay the (scribe’s) fee. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Two documents are written for the two parties, one copy for each.”",
+ "If a man had paid part of his debt and gave the debt document to a third party, and the debtor said to him, “If I have not paid you back by such and such a day, give him (the creditor) back the debt document” and the time came and he had not paid, Rabbi Yose says: “He should give it to him.” Rabbi Judah says: “He should not give it to him.”",
+ "If a man’s debt document was erased, he must have witnesses testify with regards to the loan, and come before the court to make this attestation: “So and so, the son of so and so, his debt document was erased on such and such a day, and so and so and so and so are his witnesses.” If a man had paid part of his debt, Rabbi Judah says: “He should exchange the debt document for a new one.” Rabbi Yose says: “He should write a receipt.” Rabbi Judah said: “It turns out that this one (the debtor) will have to guard his receipt from mice.” Rabbi Yose said to him: “That’s good for him, as long as the rights of the other (the creditor) have not been damaged.",
+ "If there were two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bath house or an olive press, if the father had made them for hire, the profit is split equally. But if he made them for his own use alone, the rich brother may say to the poor brother, “Buy for yourself slaves and they can wash in the bath house” or “Buy for yourself olives and prepare them in the olive press.” If there were two in the same town, and one’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon and other’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon, neither can bring forth a debt document on the other, and another person cannot bring forth a debt document against them. And if some person finds amongst his documents a document that states, “The [debt] document of Joseph ben Shimon is paid”, both of their [debt] documents are paid. What should they do? They should write their names to the third generation. And if the names are the same through the third generation, they should give themselves a sign. And if their signs are the same, they should write “Cohen”. If a man said to his son, “One of my debt documents is paid and I do not know which one”, then all are deemed to be paid. If two documents were found [amongst his documents] written to the same debtor, then the large one is paid and the small one is not paid. If a man lent money to his fellow on a guarantor’s security, he may not exact payment from the guarantor. But if he had said, “On the condition that I may exact payment from whom I wish”, then he may exact payment from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If the borrower had property, in neither case can he exact payment from the guarantor.” Moreover, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: “If a man was a guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the husband must vow to derive no further benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of the guarantor and take his wife back again.”",
+ "If a man lent his fellow money by using a document, he may recover the debt from mortgaged property. But if he had lent only before witnesses (and not through a document), he may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If the [creditor] brought forth [a loan document] upon which appeared his (the debtor’s) signature as evidence that he was indebted to him, the creditor may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If a man signed as a guarantor after the signatures of witnesses, the creditor may recover the debt only from [the guarantor’s] unmortgaged property. Such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael and he said, “He may recover only from unmortgaged property”. Ben Nanos said to him: “He may recover the debt neither from mortgaged nor unmortgaged property.” He said to him: “Why?” He answered, “If a man seized a debtor by the throat in the street and his fellow found him and said ‘Leave him alone (and I will pay), he is not liable, since not through trust in him did the creditor lend the debtor money.” Rather which type of guarantor is liable? [If a man said], “Lend him money and I will pay thee”, he is liable, for he lent him the money through his trust in the guarantor. And Rabbi Yishmael said, “He who wants to be wise let him occupy himself with cases dealing with monetary matters, for there is no greater branch of Torah than this; for they are like a welling fountain; and he who wishes to occupy himself with laws concerning monetary matters, let him serve [as a pupil] of Shimon ben Nanos."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b164346a2ecc5a2c66d85b39d51e64cc31dc85e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json
@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Batra",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001042448/NLI",
+ "versionTitle": "Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de]",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 0.25,
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+ "actualLanguage": "de",
+ "languageFamilyName": "german",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא בתרא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "WENN GEMEINSCHAFTEU IM GEMEINSAMEN HOFE EINE ABTEILUNG MACHEN WOLLEN, SO BAUEN SIE DIE WAND IN DER MITTE, UND ZWAR WIE ES IM ORTE ZU BAUEN ÜBLICH IST, AUS BRUCHSTEINEN, QUADERN, HALBZIEGELN ODER ZIEGELN; ALLES NACH DEM LANDESBRAUCHE. BEI EINER AUS BRUCHSTEINEN GIBT DER EINE DREI HANDBREITEN UND DER ANDERE DREI HANDBREITEN, BEI EINER AUS QUADERN GIBT DER EINE ZWEIEINHALB HANDBREITEN UND DER ANDERE ZWEIEINHALB HANDBREITEN; BEI EINER AUS HALBZIEGELN GIBT DER EINE ZWEI HANDBREITEN UND DER ANDERE ZWEI HANDBREITEN; UND BEI EINER AUS ZIEGELN GIBT DER EINE ANDERTHALB HANDBREITEN UND DER ANDERE ANDERTHALB HANDBREITEN. DAHER GEHÖREN, WENN DIE WAND EINSTÜRZT, DER PLATZ UND DIE STEINE BEIDEN.",
+ "EBENSO AUCH BEI EINEM GARTEN: WO ES ÜBLICH IST, EINEN Zaun ZU ERRICHTEN, VERPFLICHTE MAN IHN DAZU. BEI EINER EBENE ABER KANN MAN IHN, WO ES ÜBLICH IST, KEINEN ZAUN ZU ERRICHTEN, DAZU NICHT VERPFLICHTEN; WENN ABER EINER ESWILL, SO RÜCKE ER EIN, BAUE DIE WAND AUF SEINEM GEBIETE UND MACHE VON AUSSEN EIN KENNZEICHEN. DAHER GEHÖREN, WENN DIE WAND EINSTÜRZT, DER PLATZ UND DIE STEINE IHM ALLEIN. ERRICHTEN SIE SIE MIT DER ÜBEREINSTIMMUNG BEIDER, SO BAUEN SIE DIE WAND IN DER MITTE UND MACHEN KENNZEICHEN AN DER EINEN UND AN DER ANDEREN SEITE. DAHER GEHÖREN, WENN DIE WAND EINSTÜRZT, DER PLATZ UND DIE STEINE BEIDEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN VON DREI SEITEN ANGRENZTUND EINEN ZAUN AN DER EINEN, AN DER ZWEITEN UND AN DER DRITTEN SEITE ERRICHTET, SO VERPFLICHTET MAN DIESENNICHT. R. JOSE SAGT, WENN ER SICH AUFMACHT UND AUCH AN DER VIERTEN SEITE EINEN ZAUN ERRICHTET, SO WIRD IHM ALLESAUFERLEGT.",
+ "WENN DIE ZWISCHENWAND EINES HOFESEINSTÜRZT, SO VERPFLICHTET MAN JEDEN, SIE BIS VIER ELLENAUFZUBAUEN; VON JEDEM WIRD ANGENOMMEN, DASS ER BEIGETRAGEN HAT, BIS DER ANDEREDEN BEWEIS ERBRINGT, DASS ER NICHT BEIGETRAGEN HAT. ÜBER VIER ELLEN KANN MAN KEINENVERPFLICHTEN; WENN ABER DER ANDEREDANEBEN EBENFALLSEINE WAND GEBAUT HAT, AUCH WENN ER DARÜBER NOCH KEINE BALKEN GELEGT HAT, SO WIRD IHM ALLES AUFERLEGT; ES WIRD ANGENOMMEN, DASS ER NICHT BEIGETRAGENHAT, BIS ER DEN BEWEIS ERBRINGT, DASS ER BEIGETRAGEN HAT.",
+ "MAN HÄLT IHNAN, ZUM BAU EINES TORHÄUSCHENSUND EINER TÜR ZUM HOFE BEIZUTRAGEN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, NICHT JEDER HOF BRAUCHT EIN TORHÄUSCHEN. MAN HÄLT IHNAN, ZUM BAU EINER MAUER UND VON TOREN UND RIEGELN FÜR DIE STADT BEIZUTRAGEN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, NICHT JEDE STADT BRAUCHT EINE MAUER. WIE LANGE MUSS MAN IN DER STADT GEWOHNT HABEN, UM DEN BÜRGERN DER STADTZU GLEICHEN? ZWÖLE MONATE. HAT MAN DA EIN WOHNHAUS GEKAUFT, SO GLEICHT MAN SOFORT DEN ÜBRIGEN BÜRGERN DER STADT.",
+ "MAN BRAUCHT EINEN HOF NUR DANN ZU TEILEN, WENN VIER ELLENFÜR DEN EINEN UND VIER ELLEN FÜR DEN ANDEREN VERBLEIBEN; EIN FELD NUR DANN, WENN NEUN KABFÜR DEN EINEN UND NEUN KAB FÜR DEN ANDEREN VERBLEIBEN. R. JEHUDA SAGT, WENN NEUN HALBE KAB FÜR DEN EINEN UND NEUN HALBE KAB FÜR DEN ANDEREN VERBLEIBEN. EINEN GARTEN NUR DANN, WENN EIN HALBER KABFÜR DEN EINEN UND EIN HALBER KAB FÜR DEN ANDEREN VERBLEIBT. R. A͑QIBA SAGT, EIN VIERTEL KAB. EINEN SAAL, EINE VORRATSKAMMER, EINEN TAUBENSCHLAG, EIN GEWAND, EIN BADEHAUS, ODER EINE ÖLPRESSE NUR DANN, WENN SOWOHL FÜR DEN EINEN ALS AUCH FÜR DEN ANDEREN HINREICHEND ZURÜCKBLEIBT. DIE REGEL HIERBEI IST: WENN NACH DER TEILUNG DER NAME BEIBEHALTEN WIRD, SO TEILEN SIE, WENN ABER NICHT, SO BRAUCHEN SIE NICHT ZU TEILEN. DIES NUR, WENN NICHT BEIDE ESWOLLEN, WENN ABER BEIDE ES WOLLEN, SO TEILEN SIE, AUCH WENN ES WENIGER IST. HEILIGE SCHRIFTENABER DARF MAN NICHT TEILEN, AUCH WENN BEIDE ES WOLLEN."
+ ],
+ [
+ "MAN DARF KEINE ZISTERNE NEBEN DER ZISTERNE EINES ANDEREN GRABEN, AUCH KEINEN GRABEN, KEINE HÖHLE, KEINEN WASSERKANAL UND KEIN WÄSCHERBECKEN, ES SEI DENN, DASS MAN DIESE VON DER WAND DES ANDEREN DREI HANDBREITEN ENTFERNT UND SEINE WAND MIT KALK VERPUTZT HAT. MAN ENTFERNE ÖLTRESTER, DÜNGER, SALZ, KALK UND FEUERSTEINE VON DER WAND EINES ANDEREN DREI HANDBREITEN, ODER MAN VERPUTZE SIE MIT KALK. MAN ENTFERNE SAATEN, DEN PFLUG UND URIN DREI HANDBREITEN VON EINER FREMDEN WAND. EINE MÜHLE ENTFERNE MAN DREI HANDBREITEN VOM MÜHLSTEINE AUS, DAS SIND VIER VOM MAHLSTEINE; EINEN BACKOFEN ENTFERNE MAN DREI VOM SOCKEL AUS, DAS SIND VIER VOM RANDE.",
+ "MAN DARF EINEN BACKOFEN NUR DANN IN EINEM HAUSE AUFSTELLEN, WENN DARÜBER VIER ELLEN FREIER RAUM VORHANDENIST; IN EINEM OBERGEMACHE DARF MAN EINEN SOLCHEN NUR DANN AUFSTELLEN, WENN DARUNTER EIN ESTRICH VON DREI HANDBREITEN VORHANDEN IST; FÜR EINEN KOCHHERD GENÜGT EINE HANDBREITE. HAT MAN SCHADEN ANGERICHTET, SO MUSS MAN DEN SCHADEN ERSETZEN. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT, DIESE MASSE SEIEN NUR DESHALB FESTGESETZT WORDEN, DAMIT MAN ERSATZFREI SEI, WENN MAN SCHADEN, ANRICHTET. MAN DARF UNTER DEM SPEICHER EINES ANDEREN KEINEN BÄCKERODER FÄRBERLADEN ERÖFFNEN, AUCH KEINEN RINDERSTALL ANLEGEN. ALLERDINGS HAT MAN DIES BEIM WEINEERLAUBT, ABER IMMERHIN KEINEN RINDERSTALL.",
+ "EINEN LADEN IN EINEM GEMEINSCHAFTLICHEN HOFE ZU ERÖFFNEN, KANN DER ANDERE VERWEHREN UND SAGEN: ICH KANN WEGEN DES LÄRMS DER EIN- UND AUSGEHENDEN NICHT SCHLAFEN. WER GERÄTE FERTIGT, MUSS HINAUSGEHEN UND SIE AUF DEM MARKTE VERKAUFEN; JEDOCH KANN MAN EINEM DAS ARBEITEN NICHT VERWEHREN UND ZU IHM SAGEN: ICH KANN NICHT SCHLAFEN WEGEN DES GERÄUSCHES DES HAMMERS, DES GERÄUSCHES DER MÜHLE ODER DES LÄRMS DER KINDER·",
+ "WER EINE WAND NEBEN DER WAND EINES ANDEREN HAT, DARF NEBEN DIESER NOCH EINE ANDERE NUR DANN AUFSTELLEN, WENN ER SIE VIER ELLEN VON DER WAND DES ANDEREN ENTFERNT. DIE FENSTER MÜSSEN OBEN, UNTEN UND GEGENÜBER VIER ELLEN ENTFERNT SEIN.",
+ "MAN ENTFERNE EINE LEITER VON EINEM FREMDEN TAUBENSCHLAGE VIER ELLEN, DAMIT NICHT EIN MARDER HINAUFSPRINGEN KÖNNE; EINE WAND VON EINER FREMDEN DACHRINNE VIER ELLEN, DAMIT DIESER EINE LEITER AUFSTELLEN KÖNNE.MAN ENTFERNE EINEN TAUBENSCHLAG FÜNFZIG ELLEN VON DER STADT. AUF EIGENEM GEBIETE DARF MAN EINEN TAUBENSCHLAG NUR DANN ERRICHTEN, WENN FÜNFZIG ELLEN NACH JEDER SEITEIHM GEHÖREN; R. JEHUDA SAGT: EINE FLÄCHE VON VIER KOR AUSSAAT, DIE AUSDEHNUNG DES TAUBENFLUGES. HAT MAN EINEN GEKAUFT, SO BLEIBT ER IN SEINEM BESITZRECHTE, AUCH WENN NUR EINE FLÄCHE VON EINEM VIERTELKAB VORHANDEN IST.",
+ "WIRD EIN JUNGES TÄUBCHEN INNERHALB DER FÜNFZIG ELLENGEFUNDEN, SO GEHÖRT ES DEM EIGENTÜMER DES TAUBENSCHLAGES, UND WENN AUSSERHALB DER FÜNFZIG ELLEN, SO GEHÖRT ES DEM FINDER. WIRD ES ZWISCHEN ZWEI TAUBENSCHLÄGENGEFUNDEN, SO GEHÖRT ES, WENN ES DIESEM NÄHER IST, DIESEM, UND WENN ES JENEM NÄHER IST, JENEM; WENN BEIDEN GLEICHMÄSSIG, SO TEILEN SIE.",
+ "MAN ENTFERNE EINEN BAUM FÜNFUNDZWANZIG ELLEN VON DER STADT, EINEN JOHANNISBROTBAUM ODER EINE SYKOMOREFÜNFZIG ELLEN. ABBA ŠAÚL SAGT: JEDEN LEEREN BAUMFÜNFZIG ELLEN. WAR DIE STADT FRÜHER DA, SO FÄLLE MAN IHN UND ERSETZE DEN WERT NICHT; WAR DER BAUM FRÜHER DA, SO FÄLLE MAN IHN UND ERSETZE DEN WERT; IST ES ZWEIFELHAFT, WER VON BEIDEN FRÜHER DA WAR, SO FÄLLE MAN IHN UND ERSETZE DEN WERT NICHT.",
+ "MAN ENTFERNE EINE PERMANENTE TENNEFÜNFZIG ELLEN VON DER STADT. AUF EIGENEM GEBIETE DARF MAN EINE PERMANENTE TENNE NUR DANN ERRICHTEN, WENN FÜNFZIG ELLEN NACH JEDER RICHTUNG IHM GEHÖREN. MAN ENTFERNE SIE VON DEN PFLANZUNGEN UND DEM ACKER EINES ANDEREN SOVIEL, DASS SIE KEINEN SCHADEN ANRICHTE.",
+ "MAN ENTFERNE ABDECKEREIEN, GRÄBER UND GERBEREIEN FÜNFZIG ELLEN VON DER STADT. MAN DARF EINE GERBEREI NUR IN DER OSTSEITE DER STADT ERRICHTEN. R. A͑QIBA SAGT, MAN DÜRFE ES IN JEDER SEITE, NUR NIGHT IN DER WESTSEITE.",
+ "MAN ENTFERNE DIE BEIZE VON KRÄUTERN, LAUCH UND ZWIEBELN, UND SENF VON BIENEN. R. JOSE ERLAUBT ES BEIM SENF.",
+ "MAN ENTFERNE EINEN BAUM FÜNFUNDZWANZIG ELLEN VON EINER ZISTERNE; EINEN JOHANNISBROTBAUM UND EINE SYKOMOREFÜNFZIG ELLEN, EINERLEI OB ER OBERHALBODER DANEBEN. WAR DIE ZISTERNE FRÜHER DA, SO FÄLLE ERIHN UND ERSETZE DEN WERT; WAR DER BAUM FRÜHER DA, SO FÄLLE ER IHN NICHT; IST ES ZWEIFELHAFT, WER VON BEIDEN FRÜHER DA WAR, SO FÄLLE ER IHN NICHT. R. JOSE SAGT, AUCH WENN DIE ZISTERNE FRÜHER DA WAR ALS DER BAUM, FÄLLE ER IHN NIGHT, DENN DER EINE GRÄBT AUF SEINEM GEBIETE UND DER ANDERE PFLANZT AUF SEINEM GEBIETE.",
+ "MAN DARF EINEN BAUM NEBEN DEM FELDE EINES ANDEREN NUR DANN PFLANZEN, WENN MAN IHN VIER ELLEN ENTFERNT, EINERLEI OB WEINSTÖCKE ODER IRGEND ANDERE BÄUME. BEFINDET SICH EINE MAUER DAZWISCHEN, SO DARF DER EINE AN DER EINEN SEITE BIS AN DIE MAUER HERANRÜCKEN UND DER ANDERE AN DER ANDEREN SEITE BIS AN DIE MAUER HERANRÜCKEN. RAGEN DIE WURZELN IN DAS GEBIET DES ANDEREN HINEIN, SO DARF DIESER SIE BIS ZUR TIEFE VON DREI HANDBREITEN ENTFERNEN, DAMIT SIE DEM PFLUGE NICHT HINDERLICH SEIEN. GRÄBT EREINE ZISTERNE, EINEN GRABEN ODER EINE HÖHLE, SO DARF ER SIEBIS HINABABSCHNEIDEN UND DAS HOLZ GEHÖRT IHM.",
+ "WENN EIN BAUM SICH IN DAS FELD EINES ANDEREN HINÜBERNEIGT, SO DARF DIESER DIE ZWEIGE IN DER LÄNGE DES OCHSENSTACHELS ÜBER DEM PFLUGE WEGSCHNEIDEN; VON EINEM JOHANNISBROTBAUME UND EINER SYKOMORE GENAU NACH DEM SENKBLEI; AN EINEM RIESELFELDEVON JEDEM BAUME GENAU NACH DEM SENKBLEI: ABBA ŠAÚL SAGT, VON JEDEM LEEREN BAUME GENAU NACH DEM SENKBLEI.",
+ "WENN EIN BAUM SICH IN ÖFFENTLICHES GEBIET HINÜBERNEIGT, SO SCHNEIDE MAN VON DEN ZWEIGEN SOVIEL WEG, DASS EIN KAMEL MIT SEINEM REITER HINDURCHKANN; R. JEHUDA SAGT, EIN MIT FLACHS ODER REISIGBÜNDELN BELADENES KAMEL; R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT, VOM GANZEN BAUME NACH DEM SENKBLEI, WEGEN DER UNREINHEIT."
+ ],
+ [
+ "DIE ERSITZUNG VON HÄUSERN, ZISTERNEN, GRÄBEN, HÖHLEN, TAUBENSCHLÄGEN, BADEANSTALTEN, ÖLPRESSEN, RIESELFELDERN, SKLAVEN UND ALLEM ANDEREN, DAS BESTÄNDIG FRÜCHTE TRÄGT, ERFOLGT IN DREI JAHREN, VON TAG ZU TAG. BEI EINEM NATÜRLICH BEWÄSSERTEN FELDE ERFOLGT DIE ERSITZUNG IN DREI JAHREN, JEDOCH NICHT VON TAG ZU TAG. R. JIŠMA͑ÉL SAGT, DREI MONATE VOM ERSTEN, DREI VOM LETZTEN UND ZWÖLF MONATE VOM MITTELSTEN, DAS SIND ACHTZEHN MONATE. R. A͑QIBA SAGT, EINEN MONAT VOM ERSTEN, EINEN MONAT VOM LETZTEN UND ZWÖLF MONATE VOM MITTELSTEN, DAS SIND VIERZEHN MONATE. R. JIŠMA͑ÉL SAGTE: DIES GILT NUR VON EINEM SAATFELDE, BEI EINEM BAUMFELDE ABER IST ES, WENN ER DEN ERTRAGEINGEBRACHT, DIE OLIVEN GEPFLÜCKT, UND DIE FEIGEN EINGESAMMELT HAT, EBENSO ALS WÄREN DREI JAHRE VERSTRICHEN.",
+ "ES GIBT DREI LANDGEBIETEHINSICHTLICH DER ERSITZUNG: JUDÄA, TRANSJARDEN UND GALILÄA. WENN ERSICH IN JUDÄA BEFINDET UND JEMAND SEIN GRUNDSTÜCK IN GALILÄA IN BESITZ GENOMMEN HAT, ODER IN GALILÄA UND JEMAND SEIN GRUNDSTÜCK IN JUDÄA IN BESITZ GENOMMEN HAT, SO ERFOLGT KEINE ERSITZUNG; NUR WENN ER SICH MIT IHM ZUSAMMENIM SELBEN LANDGEBIETE BEFINDET. R. JEHUDA SAGTE: SIE HABEN NUR DESHALB DREI JAHRE FESTGESETZT, DAMIT MAN, WENN ER SICH IN SPANIENBEFINDET UND JEMAND SEIN GRUNDSTÜCK EIN JAHR IN BESITZ HÄLT, EIN JAHR ZU IHM HINGEHEN UND ES IHM MITTEILEN UND ER EIN JAHR ZURÜCKKEHREN KÖNNE.",
+ "EINE ERSITZUNG, DIE NICHT AUF EINER BEGRÜNDUNGBERUHT, IST UNGÜLTIG. ZUM BEISPIEL: WENN ER ZU IHM SAGT: WAS SUCHST DU AUF MEINEM GEBIETE? UND DIESER IHM ERWIDERT: NIE SAGTE MIR JEMAND ETWAS DAGEGEN, SO IST DIES KEINE GÜLTIGE ERSITZUNG; WENN ABER: DU HAST ES MIR VERKAUFT, DU HAST ES MIR GESCHENKT, DEIN VATER HAT ES MIR VERKAUFT, DEIN VATER HAT ES MIR GESCHENKT, SO IST DIES EINE GÜLTIGE ERSITZUNG. WER SICH AUF EINE ERBSCHAFTBERUFT, BRAUCHT WEITER KEINER BEGRÜNDUNG. HANDWERKER, GEMEINSCHAFTER, QUOTENPÄCHTER UND VORMUNDE HABEN KEIN ERSITZUNGSRECHT. DER MANN HAT KEIN ERSITZUNGSRECHT AN DEN GÜTERN SEINER FRAU, NOCH DIE FRAU AN DEN GÜTERN IHRES MANNES, NOCH EIN VATER AN DEN GÜTERN SEINES SOHNES, NOCH EIN SOHN AN DEN GÜTERN SEINES VATERS. DIESGILT NUR VON DER ERSITZUNG, WENN ABER JEMAND ETWAS GESCHENKT ERHALTEN HAT, ODER WENN BRÜDER GETEILT HABEN, ODER WENN JEMAND VON DEN GÜTERN EINES PROSELYTENBESITZ ERGRIFFENHAT, SO IST, WENN MAN DA ETWAS ABGESCHLOSSEN, UMZÄUNT ODER NIEDERGERISSEN HAT, DIES EINE BESITZNAHME.",
+ "WENN ZWEI BEKUNDET HABEN, ER HABE ESDREI JAHRE GENIESSBRAUCHT, UND ALS FALSCHZEUGEN ÜBERFÜHRT WERDEN, SO MÜSSEN SIE ALLES BEZAHLEN; WENN ZWEI ÜBER DAS ERSTE, ZWEI ÜBER DAS ZWEITE UND ZWEI ÜBER DAS DRITTE, SO WIRD ESUNTER IHNEN GEDREITEILT. WENN ES DREI BRÜDER SIND UND MIT IHNEN NOCH EIN FREMDER VERBUNDENIST, SO SIND ES DREIZEUGENPARTIEN, UND SIE ERGEBEN ZUSAMMEN EINE ZEUGENAUSSAGE.",
+ "FOLGENDE SIND DIE FÄLLE, BET WELCHEN DAS ERSITZUNGSRECHT GELTUNG HAT, UND ANDERE WIEDER, BEI WELCHEN DAS ERSITZUNGSRECHT KEINE GELTUNG HAT. HAT JEMAND VIEH IN EINEN HOF GEBRACHT, DA EINEN OFEN, EINE HANDMÜHLE ODER EINEN HERD AUFGESTELLT, HÜHNER GEZÜCHTET ODER SEINEN DÜNGERGEBRACHT, SO ERFOLGT KEINE ERSITZUNG. WENN ER DA ABER FÜR SEIN VIEH EINE ZEHN HANDBREITEN HOHE WAND ERRICHTET HAT, EBENSO FÜR EINEN OFEN, EINEN HERD ODER EINE HANDMÜHLE, ODER WENN ER HÜHNER IN DAS HAUS GEBRACHT ODER DA EINEN DREI HANDBREITEN TIEFEN ODER HOHEN PLATZ FÜR SEINEN DÜNGER ERRICHTET HAT, SO ERFOLGT DADURCH EINE ERSITZUNG.",
+ "FÜR DIE RINNENTRAUFEGIBT ES KEINE ERSITZUNG, WOHL ABER GIBT ES EINE ERSITZUNG FÜR DEREN RAUM. FÜR DIE DACHRINNEGIBT ES EINE ERSITZUNG. FÜR DIE ÄGYPTISCHE LEITERGIBT ES KEINE ERSITZUNG, WOHL ABER GIBT ES EINE ERSITZUNG FÜR DIE TYRISCHE. FÜR DAS ÄGYPTISCHE FENSTERGIBT ES KEINE ERSITZUNG, WOHL ABER GIBT ES EINE ERSITZUNG FÜR DAS TYRISCHE. WELCHES HEISST EIN ÄGYPTISCHES FENSTER? DURCH DAS EIN MENSCH DEN KOPF NICHT STECKEN KANN. R. JEHUDA SAGT: HAT ES EINEN FENSTERRAHMEN, SO GIBT ES DAFÜR EINE ERSITZUNG, AUCH WENN EIN MENSCH DURCH DASSELBE DEN KOPF NICHT STECKEN KANN. FÜR EINEN VORSPRUNG VON MINDESTENS EINER HANDBREITE GIBT ES EINE ERSITZUNG UND MAN KANN ESVERWEHREN; IST ER SCHMÄLER ALS EINE HANDBREITE, SO GIBT ES DAFÜR KEINE ERSITZUNG UND MAN KANN ES NICHT VERWEHREN.",
+ "MAN DARF KEINE FENSTER NACH DEM GEMEINSCHAFTLICHEN HOFE MACHEN. KAUFT JEMAND EIN HAUS IN EINEM FREMDEN HOFE, SO DARF ER KEINE TÜR NACH DEM GEMEINSCHAFTLICHEN HOFEMACHEN. BAUT JEMAND EINEN SÖLLER AUF SEINEM HAUSE, SO DARF ER KEINE TÜR NACH DEM GEMEINSCHAFTLICHEN HOFE MACHEN; WENN ER ABER WILL, BAUE ER EIN ZIMMER INNERHALB SEINES HAUSES ODER BAUE DEN SÖLLER AUF SEINEM HAUSE UND MACHE DIE TÜR NACH SEINEM HAUSE. MAN DARF IN EINEM GEMEINSCHAFTLICHEN HOFE KEINE TÜR GEGENÜBER EINER TÜR UND KEIN FENSTER GEGENÜBER EINEM FENSTERMACHEN; AUS EINER KLEINEN TÜR DARF MAN KEINE GROSSE UND AUS EINER DARF MAN NICHT ZWEI MACHEN. NACH ÖFFENTLICHEM GEBIETE ABER DARF MAN EINE TÜR GEGENÜBER EINER TÜR UND EIN FENSTER GEGENÜBER EINEM FENSTER MACHEN; AUS EINER KLEINEN DARF MAN EINE GROSSE UND AUS EINER DARF MAN ZWEI MACHEN.",
+ "MAN DARF UNTER ÖFFENTLICHEM GEBIETE KEINE HÖHLUNGMACHEN, KEINE GRUBEN, KEINE GRÄBEN UND KEINE HÖHLEN. R. ELIE͑ZER ERLAUBT ES IN DER WEISE, DASS EIN MIT STEINEN BELADENER WAGEN DARÜBER FAHRENKANN. MAN DARF KEINE VORSPRÜNGE UND KEINE ALTANE NACH ÖFFENTLICHEM GEBIETE HINAUSRAGEND BAUEN; WENN MAN DIES ABER WILL, SO RÜCKE MAN DIE WAND NACH EINWÄRTSUND LASSE SIE HERVORRAGEN. HAT MAN EINEN HOF GEKAUFT, IN DEM VORSPRÜNGE UND ALTANE SIND, SO BLEIBE ES DABEI."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WER EIN HAUS VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DEN ANBAU NICHT MITVERKAUFT, OBGLEICH ER IN DASSELBE MÜNDET, AUCH NICHT DIE KAMMER HINTER DIESEM, UND AUCH NICHT DAS DACH, WENN ES EIN ZEHN HANDBREITEN HOHES GELÄNDER HAT. R. JEHUDA SAGT, WENN ES EINE ART TÜR HAT, SEI ES NICHT MITVERKAUFT, AUCH WENN ES KEINE ZEHN HANDBREITEN HOCH IST.",
+ "NICHT DEN BRUNNEN UND NICHT DIE ZISTERNE, OBGLEICH ER IHM GESCHRIEBEN HAT: TIEFE UND HÖHE. ERMUSS SICH ABER EINEN WEG ZU DIESEN ERKAUFEN – SO R. A͑QIBA; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, ER BRAUCHE SICH KEINEN WEG ZU DIESEN ZU ERKAUFEN. JEDOCH PFLICHTET R. A͑QIBA BEI, DASS, WENN ER GESAGT HAT: AUSSER DIESEN, ER SICH KEINEN WEG ZU DIESEN ZU ERKAUFEN BRAUCHE. HAT JEMAND DIESE (AN EINEN ANDEREN) VERKAUFT, SO BRAUCHT DIESER, WIE R. A ͑QIBA SAGT, SICH KEINEN WEG ZU DIESEN ZU ERKAUFEN; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, ER MÜSSE SICH EINEN WEG ZU DIESEN ERKAUFEN.",
+ "WEH EIN HAUS VERKAUFTHAT, HAT AUCH DIE TÜR MITVERKAUFT, NICHT ABER DEN SCHLÜSSEL. ER HAT DEN BEFESTIGTEN MÖRSERMITYERKAUFT, NICHT ABER DEN BEWEGLICHEN; ER HAT DEN MÜHLENUNTERSATZ MITVERKAUFT, NICHT ABER DEN TRICHTER. FERNER AUCH NICHT DEN OFEN UND NICHT DEN HERD. WENN ER ABER ZU IHM GESAGT HAT: ES UND ALLES, WAS SICH DARIN BEFINDET, SO IST DIES ALLES MITVERKAUFT.",
+ "WER EINEN HOF VERKAUFT HAT, HAT AUCH BRUNNEN, GRABEN UND HÖHLEN MITVERKAUFT, NICHT ABER DIE BEWEGLICHEN SACHEN; WENN ER ABER ZU IHM GESAGT HAT: IHN UND ALLES, WAS SICH DARIN BEFINDET, SO IST DIES ALLES MITVERKAUFT. OB SO ODER SOHAT ER WEDER DAS BADEHAUS NOCH DIE ÖLPRESSE, DIE SICH DARIN BEFINDEN, MITVERKAUFT. R. ELIE͑ZER SAGT, WER EINEN HOF VERKAUFT HAT, HABE NUR DEN LUFTRAUM DESSELBEN VERKAUFT.",
+ "WER EINE ÖLMÜHLE VERKAUFT HAT, HAT AUCH DAS BASSIN, DEN STEIN UND DIE PFÄHLEMITVERKAUFT, NIGHT ABER HAT ER DIE PRESSBRETTER, DAS RAD UND DEN BALKEN MITVERKAUFT. WENN ER ABER ZU IHM GESAGT HAT: SIE UND ALLES, WAS SICH DARIN BEFINDET, SO IST DIES ALLES MITVERKAUFT. R. ELIE͑ZER SAGT, WER EINE ÖLMÜHLE VERKAUFT HAT, HABE AUCH DEN BALKEN VERKAUFT.",
+ "WER EIN BADEHAUS VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DIE BRETTER, DIE BÄNKE UND DIE BADETÜCHERNICHT MITVERKAUFT. WENN ER ABER ZU IHM GESAGT HAT: ES UND ALLES, WAS SICH DARIN BEFINDET, SO IST DIES ALLES MITVERKAUFT. OB SO ODER SO HAT ER NICHT DIE WASSERBEHÄLTER UND DIE HOLZSCHEUNEN MITVERKAUFT.",
+ "WER EINE STADT VERKAUFT HAT, HAT HÄUSER, GRUBEN, GRABEN, HÖHLEN, BÄDER, TAUBENSCHLÄGE, ÖLMÜHLEN UND BEWÄSSERTE ANLAGEN MITVERKAUFT, NICHT ABER DIE BEWEGLICHEN SACHEN. HAT ER ABER ZU IHM GESAGT: SIE UND ALLES, WAS SICH IN DIESER BEFINDET, SO IST ALLES, SOGAR WENN VIEH UND SKLAVEN DARIN SIND, MITVERKAUFT. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, WER EINE STADT VERKAUFT HAT, HABE AUCH DEN SYNTER MITVERKAUFT.",
+ "WER EIN FELD VERKAUFT HAT, HAT AUCH DIE DAZU GEHÖRIGEN STEINE MITVERKAUFT, EBENSO AUCH DIE ZUM WEINBERGE NÖTIGEN ROHRSTÄBE; FERNER AUCH DAS AM BODEN HAFTENDE GETREIDE, DAS ROHRGEBÜSCH, DAS KEINE FLÄCHE VON EINEM VIERTELKAB AUSSAAT EINNIMMT, DIE NICHT MIT LEHM HERGERICHTETE WÄCHTERHÜTTE, DEN NOCH UNGEPFROPFTEN JOHANNISBROTBAUMUND DIE JUNGFRÄULICHE SYKOMORE. ER HAT ABER NICHT MITVERKAUFT DIE NICHT DAZU GEHÖRIGEN STEINE, NICHT DIE ZUM WEINBERGE NICHT NÖTIGEN ROHRSTÄBE UND NICHT DAS VOM BODEN GETRENNTE GETREIDE. WENN ER ABER ZU IHM GESAGT HAT: ES UND ALLES, WAS SICH DARIN BEFINDET, SO IST DIES ALLES MIT VERKAUFT. OB SO ODER SO HAT ER NICHT MITVERKAUFT DAS ROHRGEBÜSCH, DAS EINE FLÄCHE VON EINEM VIERTELKAB AUSSAAT EINNIMMT, DIE MIT LEHM HERGERICHTETE WÄCHTERHÜTTE, DEN GEPFROPFTEN JOHANNISBROTBAUM UND DEN SYKOMORENSTAMM.",
+ "FERNERNICHT DEN BRUNNEN, NICHT DIE KELTER, NICHT DEN TAUBENSCHLAG, EINERLEI OB SIE VERFALLEN SIND ODER BENUTZT WERDEN. ER MUSS SICH ABER EINEN WEG ERKAUFEN – SO R. A͑QIBA; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, ER BRAUCHE ES NICHT. JEDOCH PFLICHTET R. A͑QIBA BEI, DASS, WENN ER ZU IHM GESAGT HAT: MIT AUSNAHME VON DIESEN, ER SICH KEINEN WEG ZU ERKAUFEN BRAUCHE. HAT JEMAND DIESE (AN EINEN ANDEREN) VERKAUFT, SO BRAUCHT ER SICH, WIE R. A͑QIBA SAGT, KEINEN WEG ZU ERKAUFEN; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, ER MÜSSE SICH EINEN WEG ERKAUFEN. DIESGILT NUR VOM VERKAUFE, WER ABER ETWAS VERSCHENKT, VERSCHENKT DIES ALLES. WENN BRÜDER TEILEN, SO HAT, WER EIN FELD ERLANGT, AUCH DIES ALLES ERLANGT. WER DIE GÜTER EINES PROSELYTENIN BESITZ NIMMT, HAT, WENN ER EIN FELD IN BESITZ NIMMT, DIES ALLES MITGEEIGNET. WER EIN FELD GEWEIHT HAT, HAT DIES ALLES MITGEWEIHT; R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT, WER EIN FELD GEWEIHT HAT, HABE NUR DEN GEPFROPFTEN JOHANNISBROTBAUM UND DEN SYKOMORENSTAMMMITGEWEIHT."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WER EIN SCHIFF VERKAUFT HAT, HAT AUCH DEN MASTBAUM, DAS SEGEL, DIE ANKER UND ALLES, WAS ZUR FÜHRUNG NÖTIG IST, MITVERKAUFT; NICHT ABER HAT ER DIE BESATZUNG, DIE SÄCKE UND DIE LADUNG MITVERKAUFT. WENN ER ABER ZU IHM GESAGT HAT: ES UND ALLES, WAS SICH DARIN BEFINDET, SO IST DIES ALLES MITVERKAUFT.WER EINEN WAGEN VERKAUFT HAT, HAT NICHT DIE MAULTIERE MITVERKAUFT, UND WER DIE MAULTIERE VERKAUFT HAT, HAT NICHT DEN WAGEN MITVERKAUFT. WER EIN JOCH VERKAUFT HAT, HAT NICHT DIE RINDER MITVERKAUFT; WER DIE RINDER VERKAUFT HAT, HAT NICHT DAS JOCH MITVERKAUFT. R. JEHUDA SAGT, DER KAUFPREIS ENTSCHEIDET; WENN ER BEISPIELSWEISE ZU IHM GESAGT HAT: VERKAUFE MIR DEIN JOCH FÜR ZWEIHUNDERT ZUZ, SO IST ES KLAR, DASS DAS JOCH ALLEIN NICHT ZWEIHUNDERT ZUZ WERT IST. DIE WEISEN ABER SAGEN, DER KAUFPREIS BEWEISE NICHTS.",
+ "WER EINEN ESEL VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DAS SCHIRRZEUG NICHT MITVERKAUFT; NAḤUM DER MEDER SAGT, ER HABE AUCH DAS SCHIRRZEUG MITVERKAUFT. R. JEHUDA SAGT, ZUWEILEN SEI ES MIT VERKAUFTUND ZUWEILEN SEI ES NICHT MITVERKAUFT, UND ZWAR: WENN DER ESEL VOR IHM STAND UND SEIN SCHIRRZEUG ANHATTE, UND ER ZU IHM SAGTE: VERKAUFE MIR DIESEN DEINEN ESEL, SO IST DAS SCHIRRZEUG MITVERKAUFT, WENN ABER: IST DAS DEIN ESEL? SO IST DAS SCHIRRZEUG NICHT MIT VERKAUFT.",
+ "WER EINE ESELIN VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DAS FÜLLEN MITVERKAUFT; WER EINE KUH VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DAS KALB NIGHT MITVERKAUFT. WER EINEN MISTPLATZ VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DEN MIST MITVERKAUFT. WER EINEN BRUNNEN VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DAS WASSER MITVERKAUFT. WER EINEN BIENENSTOCK VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DIE BIENEN MITVERKAUFT. WER EINEN TAUBENSCHLAG VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DIE TAUBEN MITVERKAUFT. WER VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN DIE FRUCHT EINES TAUBENSCHLAGESKAUFT, MUSS DIE ERSTE BRUTZURÜCKLASSEN. WENN DIE FRUCHT EINES BIENENSTOCKES, SO ERHÄLT ER DREI SCHWÄRME, SODANN MACHE DER VERKÄUFER DIE BIENEN UNFRUCHTBAR. WENN DIE HONIGWABEN, SO MUSS ER ZWEI WABENZURÜCKLASSEN; WENN OLIVENBÄUME ZUM FÄLLEN, SO LASSE ER ZWEI REISER ZURÜCK.",
+ "WER ZWEI BÄUME IM FELDE EINES ANDEREN GEKAUFT HAT, HAT DEN BODENNICHT MITGEKAUFT; R. MEÍR SAGT, ER HABE AUCH DEN BODEN MITGEKAUFT. SIND SIEAUSGEWACHSEN, SO DARF JENERSIE NICHT STUTZEN. WAS VOM STAMME HERVORWÄCHST, GEHÖRT IHM, UND WAS VON DEN WURZELN HERVORWÄCHST, GEHÖRT DEM EIGENTÜMER DES GRUNDSTÜCKES; STERBEN SIE AB, SO ERHÄLT ER NICHTS VOM BODEN. WER DREI GEKAUFT HAT, HAT AUCH DEN BODEN MITGEKAUFT; SIND SIE AUSGEWACHSEN, SO DARFJENER SIE BESTUTZEN. WAS VOM STAMME HERVORWÄCHST, UND WAS VON DEN WURZELN HERVORWÄCHST, GEHÖRT IHM; STERBEN SIE AB, SO GEHÖRT DER BODEN IHM.",
+ "WER DEN KOPF VON EINEM GROSSVIEH VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DIE FÜSSE NICHT MITVERKAUFT, WER DIE FÜSSE VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DEN KOPF NICHT MITVERKAUFT. WER DIE LUNGE VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DIE LEBER NICHT MITVERKAUFT, WER DIE LEBER VERKAUFT HAT, HAT DIE LUNGE NICHT MITVERKAUFT. BEI EINEM KLEINVIEH ABER HAT, WER DEN KOPF VERKAUFT HAT, AUCH DIE FÜSSE MITVERKAUFT, UND WER DIE FÜSSE VERKAUFT HAT, DEN KOPF NICHT MITVERKAUFT; WER DIE LUNGE VERKAUFT HAT, AUCH DIE LEBER MITVERKAUFT, UND WER DIE LEBER VERKAUFT HAT, DIE LUNGE NICHT MITVERKAUFT.",
+ "VIER NORMEN GIBT ES BEIM VERKAUFE. WENN ER IHM DEN WEIZEN ALS GUT VERKAUFT HAT UND ER SICH ALS SCHLECHT HERAUSSTELLT, SO KANN DER KÄUFER ZURÜCKTRETEN; WENN ALS SCHLECHT UND ER SICH ALS GUT HERAUSSTELLT, SO KANN DER VERKÄUFER ZURÜCKTRETEN; WENN ALS SCHLECHT UND ER SICH ALS SCHLECHT HERAUSSTELLT, ODER ALS GUT UND ER SICH ALS GUT HERAUSSTELLT, SO KANN KEINER VON IHNEN ZURÜCKTRETEN; WENN ALS DUNKEL UND ER SICH ALS WEISS HERAUSSTELLT, ODER ALS WEISS UND ER SICH ALS DUNKEL HERAUSSTELLT, ODER OLIVENHOLZ UND ES SICH ALS SYKOMORENHOLZ HERAUSSTELLT, ODER SYKOMORENHOLZ UND ES SICH ALS OLIVENHOLZ HERAUSSTELLT, ODER WEIN UND ER SICH ALS ESSIG HERAUSSTELLT, ODER ESSIG UND ER SICH ALS WEIN HERAUSSTELLT, SO KÖNNEN BEIDE ZURÜCKTRETEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN FRÜCHTE VERKAUFT, SO HAT SIE DIESER, SOBALD ER SIE AN SICH GEZOGEN HAT, GEEIGNET, OBGLEICH JENER SIE IHM NICHT ZUGEMESSENHAT; WENN JENER SIE IHM ZUGEMESSEN UND ER SIE NICHT AN SICH GEZOGEN HAT, SO HAT ER SIE NICHT GEEIGNET; IST ER ABER KLUG, SO MIETE ER DEN PLATZ. WER VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN FLACHS KAUFT, EIGNET IHN ERST DANN, WENN ER IHN VON EINEM ORTE NACH EINEM ANDEREN GETRAGEN HAT; WENN DIESER NOCH AM BODEN HAFTET UND ER ETWAS DAVON PFLÜCKT, SO HAT ER IHN GEEIGNET.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN WEIN ODER ÖL VERKAUFT HAT UND SIE IM PREISE GESTIEGEN ODER GEFALLEN SIND, SO ERFOLGT DIES, WENN BEVOR DAS MASS GEFÜLLT WORDEN IST, FÜR DEN VERKÄUFER, UND WENN NACHDEM DAS MASS GEFÜLLT WORDEN IST, FÜR DEN KÄUFER. WENN SIE EINEN MAKLER HABEN UND DAS FASS ZERBRICHT, SO TRÄGT DER MAKLER DEN SCHADEN. ER MUSS IHM DREI TROPFENNACHTRIEFEN LASSEN. HATTE ER DAS GEFÄSS UMGEBOGEN, SO GEHÖRT DIE NEIGEDEM VERKÄUFER. DER KRÄMERBRAUCHT DIE DREI TROPFEN NICHT NACHTRIEFEN ZU LASSEN. R. JEHUDA SAGT, AM VORABEND DES ŠABBATHS BEI EINBRECHENDER DUNKELHEITSEI ER DAVON BEFREIT.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEIN KIND MIT EINEM PONDION IN DER HAND ZU EINEM KRÄMER SCHICKT, UND DIESER IHM FÜR EINEN ASSAR ÖL ZUMISST UND EINEN ASSARHERAUSGIBT, UND ES DIE FLASCHE ZERBRICHT UND DEN ASSAR VERLIERT, SO IST DER KRÄMER HAFTBAR. R. JEHUDA BEFREIT IHN, DENN AUF DIESE GEFAHR HIN HAT JENER ES GESCHICKT. DIE WEISEN PFLICHTEN R. JEHUDA BEI, DASS, WENN DAS KIND DIE FLASCHE IN DER HAND GEHALTEN UND DER KRÄMER IHM IN DIESE HINEINGEMESSEN HAT, DER KRÄMER FREI SEI.",
+ "DER GROSSHÄNDLER MUSS SEINE MASSEEINMAL IN DREISSIG TAGEN REINIGEN; DER HAUSHERREINMAL IN ZWÖLF MONATEN; R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, DIE SACHE VERHALTE SICH ENTGEGENGESETZT. DER KRÄMER REINIGE SEINE MASSE ZWEIMAL IN DER WOCHE, REIBE SEINE GEWICHTEEINMAL IN DER WOCHE AB UND REINIGE DIE WAGEBEI JEDESMALIGEM WÄGEN.",
+ "R. SIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGTE: DIES GILT NUR VON FLÜSSIGKEITSMASSEN, BEI TROCKENMASSEN ABER IST DIES NICHT NÖTIG. ER MUSS IHMEIN ÜBERGEWICHT VON EINER HANDBREITEGEBEN; HAT ER IHM ABER GENAU GEWOGEN, SO GEBE ER IHM EINEN ZUSCHUSS, EINES ZU ZEHN BEI FLÜSSIGEM UND EINES ZU ZWANZIG BEI TROCKENEM. IN ORTEN, WO ES ÜBLICH IST, MIT KLEINEN MASSEN ZU MESSEN, MESSE MAN NICHT MIT GROSSEN, UND WO MIT GROSSEN, MESSE MAN NICHT MIT KLEINEN; ZU STREICHEN, GEBE MAN NICHT GEHÄUFT, GEHÄUFT ZU GEBEN, STREICHE MAN NICHT."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN FRÜCHTE VERKAUFT HAT UND SIE NICHT WACHSEN, SELBST LEINSAMEN, SO IST ER NICHT HAFTBAR. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, FÜR GARTENGESÄME, DIE NICHT GEGESSEN WERDEN, SEI ER HAFTBAR.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN FRÜCHTE VERKAUFT, SO MUSS DIESES AUF DIE SEÁ EIN VIERTELKABABFÄLLE MITNEHMEN; WENN FEIGEN, SO MUSS ER AUF DAS HUNDERT ZEHN WURMSTICHIGE MITNEHMEN; WENN EINEN KELLER MIT WEIN, SO MUSS ER BEI HUNDERT FÄSSERN ZEHN KAHMIGE MITNEHMEN; WENN KRÜGE IN ŠAROZ, SO MUSS ER AUF HUNDERT ZEHN SCHLECHTE MITNEHMEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN WEIN VERKAUFT HAT UND ER SAUER WIRD, SO IST ER NICHT HAFTBAR; WIRD ES ABER BEKANNT, DASS SEIN WEIN SAUER WIRD, SO IST DIES EIN AUF EINEM IRRTUM BERUHENDER KAUF. SAGTE ER ZU IHM, ER VERKAUFE IHM GEWÜRZTENWEIN, SO IST ER FÜR GUTE ERHALTUNG BIS ZUM WOCHENFESTE HAFTBAR. UNTER ALTEM WEINE IST DER VORJÄHRIGEUND UNTER GEALTERTEM IST DER DREIJÄHRIGEZU VERSTEHEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EINEN PLATZ VERKAUFT, UM AUF DIESEM EIN HOCHZEITSHAUSFÜR SEINEN SOHN ODER EIN WITWENHAUS FÜR SEINE TOCHTER ZU BAUEN, SO BAUE ER VIER ZU SECHS ELLEN– SO R. A͑QIBA; R. JIŠMA͑ÉL SAGT, EIN SOLCHESSEI EIN RINDERSTALL. WER EINEN RINDERSTALL ERRICHTEN WILL, BAUE VIER ZU SECHS ELLEN; EIN KLEINES HAUS HAT SECHS ZU ACHT ELLEN; EIN GROSSES HAT ACHT ZU ZEHN, EIN SAAL HAT ZEHN ZU ZEHN; DIE HÖHE BETRÄGT DIE HÄLFTE DER LÄNGE UND DIE HÄLFTE DER BREITE. EIN BEWEIS DAFÜR? R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGTE, DER BAU DES TEMPELS.",
+ "WER EINE ZISTERNE HINTER DEM HAUSE EINES ANDEREN HAT, DARF HINEINGEHENZUR ZEIT, WENN MENSCHEN HINEINZUGEHEN PFLEGEN, UND HERAUSGEHEN ZUR ZEIT, WENN MENSCHEN HERAUSZUGEHEN PFLEGEN. ER DARF NICHT SEIN VIEH HINEINBRINGEN, UM ES AUS DER ZISTERNE ZU TRÄNKEN, VIELMEHR SCHÖPFE ER UND TRÄNKE ES DRAUSSEN. DER EINE BRINGE EIN SCHLOSS AN UND DER ANDERE BRINGE EIN SCHLOSS AN.",
+ "WER EINEN GARTEN HINTER DEM GARTEN EINES ANDEREN HAT, DARF HIN HEINGEHEN ZUR ZEIT, WENN MENSCHEN HINEINZUGEHEN PFLEGEN, UND HERAUSGEHEN ZUR ZEIT, WENN MENSCHEN HERAUSZUGEHEN PFLEGEN. ER DARF DA KEINE HÄNDLERHINEINFÜHREN, AUCH NICHT DURCH DIESEN NACH EINEM ANDEREN FELDEGEHEN. DER ÄUSSERE BESITZER DARF DEN WEGBESÄEN. HAT MANIHM MIT BEIDERSEITIGEM ÜBEREINKOMMEN EINEN WEG AN DER SEITEZUERKANNT, SO DARF ER NACH BELIEBEN HINEINGEHEN UND NACH BELIEBEN HERAUSGEHEN, AUCH DA HÄNDLER HINEINBRINGEN; JEDOCH DARF ER NICHT DURCH DIESEN NACH EINEM ANDEREN FELDE GEHEN; UND BEIDE DÜRFEN IHN NICHT BESÄEN.",
+ "WENN EIN ÖFFENTLICHER WEG SICH DURCH SEIN FELD HINZIEHT, UND ER DIESEN ABSCHAFFT UND EIJNEN ANDEREN AN DER SEITE ERRICHTET, SO BLEIBT DER NEUERRICHTETE BESTEHEN UND SEINENERHÄLT ER NICHT. DER PRIVATWEG HAT EINE BREITE VON VIER ELLEN, DER ÖFFENTLICHE WEG SECHZEHN ELLEN, DER WEG DES KÖNIGS HAT KEINE BESCHRÄNKUNG, DER WEG ZUM BEGRÄBNISPLATZE HAT KEINE BESCHRÄNKUNG. DER AUFSTELLUNGSPLATZHAT, WIE DIE RICHTER VON SEPPHORIS SAGEN, EINE FLÄCHE VON VIER KAB AUSSAAT.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EINEN PLATZ ZU EINEM FAMILIEN-GRABE VERKAUFT, ODER WENN JEMAND VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN DIE ANLEGUNG EINES FAMILIENGRABES ÜBERNIMMT, SO MACHE ER DAS INNERE DER HÖHLEVIER ZU SECHS ELLEN GROSS UND GRABE IN DIESER ACHT NISCHEN, DREI AN DER EINEN SEITE, DREI AN DER ANDEREN SEITE UND ZWEI GEGENÜBER. DIE NISCHEN MÜSSEN VIER ELLEN LANG, SIEBEN HANDBREITEN HOCH UND SECHS BREITSEIN. R. ŠIMA͑N B. GAMLIEL SAGT, ER MACHE DAS INNERE DER HÖHLE SECHS ZU ACHT ELLEN GROSS UND GRABE IN DIESER DREIZEHN NISCHEN, VIER AN DER EINEN SEITE, VIER AN DER ANDEREN SEITE, DREI GEGENÜBER UND JE EINE RECHTS UND LINKS DES EINGANGES. AM EINGANGE DER HÖHLE ERRICHTE ER EINEN VORRAUM VON SECHS ZU SECHS ELLEN, RAUM FÜR DIE BAHRE SAMT DEN TRÄGERN. MAN DARF NACH DIESEMAUCH ZWEI HÖHLEN ÖFFNEN, EINE DORT, UND EINE DA. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT, AUCH VIER, NACH ALLEN VIER SEITEN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, ALLES NACH DER BESCHAFFENHEIT DES FELSENS."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WENN JEMAND ZU SEINEM NÄCHSTEN SAGT: ICH VERKAUFE DIR EINE KORFLÄCHE ACKERLAND, UND DA ZEHN HANDBREITEN TIEFE SPALTE ODER ZEHN HANDBREITEN HOHE FELSEN SICH BEFINDEN, SO WERDEN SIE NICHT MITGEMESSEN; KLEINERE WERDEN MITGEMESSEN. SAGTE ER: UNGEFÄHR EINE KORFLÄCHE ACKERLAND, SO WERDEN SOGAR SPALTE, TIEFER ALS ZEHN HANDBREITEN UND FELSEN, HÖHER ALS ZEHN HANDBREITEN MITGEMESSEN.",
+ "SAGTE ER: ICH VERKAUFE DIR EINE MIT DEM STRICKE GEMESSENE KORFLÄCHE ACKERLAND, UND ES ETWAS WENIGER IST, SO KANN JENER ES ABZIEHEN; WENN ETWAS MEHR, SO MUSS JENER ES ZURÜCKGEBEN. SAGTE ER ABER: SEI ES WENIGER ODER MEHR, SO BLEIBT ES DABEI, SELBST WENN ES EIN VIERTELKAB AUF DIE SEÁWENIGER ODER MEHR IST; WENN ABER MEHR, SO VERRECHNE MANES. WAS GEBE ER IHMZURÜCK? DAS GELD; WENN DIESERABER WILL, GEBE JENER IHM LAND ZURÜCK. ABER NUR UM DAS RECHT DES VERKÄUFERS ZU BESSERN, SAGTEN SIE, DASS ER IHM DAS GELD ZURÜCKGEBE. WENN IHM NÄMLICH IM FELDE EINE FLÄCHE VON NEUN KAB, ODER IM GARTEN EINE FLÄCHE VON EINEM HALBEN KAB, NACH R. A͑QIBAEINE FLÄCHE VON EINEM VIERTELKAB, ZURÜCKBLEIBEN WÜRDE, GEBE JENER IHM DAS LAND ZURÜCK. UND NICHT NUR DAS VIERTELGEBE ER IHM ZURÜCK, SONDEN GANZEN ÜBERŠCHUSS.",
+ "SAGTE ER: ICH VERKAUFE DIR MIT DEM STRICKE GEMESSEN, SEI ES WENIGER ODER MEHR, SO HABEN DIE WORTE WENIGER ODER MEHR DIE WORTE MIT DEM STRICKE GEMESSEN AUFGEHOBEN. SAGTE ER: SEI ES WENIGER ODER MEHR, MIT DEM STRICKE GEMESSEN, SO HABEN DIE WORTE MITDEM STRICKE GEMESSEN DIE WORTE WENIGER ODER MEHR AUFGEHOBEN – SO BEN NANNOS. SAGTE ER: INNERHALB DER ZEICHENUND GRENZEN, SO BLEIBT ES DABEI, WENN DIE DIFFERENZ WENIGER ALS EIN SECHSTEL BETRÄGT; WENN ABER MEHR ALS EIN SECHSTEL, SO ZIEHE ER ES AB.",
+ "WENN JEMAND ZU SEINEM NÄCHSTEN SAGTE: ICH VERKAUFE DIR EIN HALBES FELD, SO SCHÄTZEMAN ES UNTER IHNEN, UND ER ERHÄLT DIE HÄLFTEDES FELDES. SAGTE ER: ICH VERKAUFE DIR DIE HÄLFTE AN DER SÜDSEITE, SO SCHÄTZE MAN ES UNTER IHNEN, UND ER ERHÄLT DIE HÄLFTEAN DER SÜDSEITE. ERMUSS DEN PLATZ FÜR DIE MAUERWANDUND FÜR DEN GROSSEN UND DEN KLEINEN GRABENHERGEBEN. WIEVIEL BETRÄGT DIE BREITE? DIE DES GROSSEN GRABENS SECHS HANDBREITEN UND DIE DES KLEINEN GRABENS DREI."
+ ],
+ [
+ "MANCHE VERWANDTE BEERBEN UND VERERBEN; MANCHE BEERBEN UND VERERBEN NICHT; MANCHE VERERBEN UND BEERBEN NICHT; UND MANCHE BEERBEN NICHT UND VERERBEN NICHT. FOLGENDE BEERBEN UND VERERBEN: DER VATER SEINE SÖHNE, DIE SÖHNE IHREN VATER, UND BRÜDER VÄTERLICHERSEITS EINANDER; DIESE BEERBEN UND VERERBEN. ES BEERBEN DER MANN SEINE MUTTER, DER MANN SEINE EHEFRAU UND DIE SÖHNE DER SCHWESTERN; DIESE BEERBEN UND VERERBEN NICHT. ES VERERBEN DIE FRAU IHREN SÖHNEN, DIE FRAU IHREM EHEMANNE UND DIE BRÜDER DER MUTTER; DIESE VERERBEN UND BEERBEN NICHT. BRÜDER MÜTTER-LICHERSEITS BEERBEN UND VERERBEN EINANDER NICHT.",
+ "DIE ORDNUNG DER ERBSCHAFT IST FOLGENDE:Wenn jemand stirbt und keinen Sohn hinterläßt, so sollt ihr sein Erbe auf seine Tochter übergehen lassen.EIN SOHN GEHT DER TOCHTER VOR, UND DIE NACHKOMMEN DES SOHNES GEHEN DER TOCHTER VOR; EINE TOCHTER GEHT DEN BRÜDERN VOR, UND DIE NACHKOMMENDER TOCHTER GEHEN DEN BRÜDERN VOR; DIE BRÜDER GEHEN DEN BRÜDERN DES VATERS VOR, UND DIE NACHKOMMEN DER BRÜDER GEHEN DEN BRÜDERN DES VATERS VOR. DIE REGEL HIERBEI IST: WER BEI DER ERBSCHAFT VORGEHT, DESSEN NACHKOMMEN GEHEN AUCH VOR; DER VATER GEHT ALL SEINENNACHKOMMEN VOR.",
+ "DIE TÖCHTER ÇELOPHḤADSERHIELTEN DREI ANTEILE VOM ERBBESITZE: DEN ANTEIL IHRES VATERS, DER ZU DEN AUSZÜGLERN AUS MIÇRAJIM GEHÖRTE, UND DEN ANTEIL, DEN DIESER MIT SEINEN BRÜDERN AM VERMÖGEN ḤEPHERSHATTE, UND ZWAR WAREN ES ZWEI ANTEILE, DA ERERSTGEBORENER WAR.",
+ "SOWOHL der SOHN ALS AUCH DIE TOCHTER SIND AN DER ERBSCHAFT BETEILIGT, NUR ERHÄLT DER SOHNEINEN DOPPELTEN ANTEIL VOM VERMÖGEN DES VATERS UND KEINEN DOPPELTEN ANTEIL VOM VERMÖGEN DER MUTTER; DIE TÖCHTER WERDEN UNTERHALTEN VOM VERMÖGEN DES VATERS, NICHT ABER VOM VERMÖGEN DER MUTTER.",
+ "WENN JEMANDSAGT: JENER MEIN ERSTGEBORENER SOHN SOLL KEINEN DOPPELTEN ANTEIL ERHALTEN, ODER: JENER MEIN SOHN SOLL NICHT MIT SEINEN BRÜDERN ERBEN, SO HAT ER NICHTSGESAGT, DENN DIES IST GEGEN DIE BESTIMMUNG DER TORA. WENN JEMAND SEINE GÜTER MÜNDLICH VERTEILT, UND DABEI EINEM MEHR UND DEM ANDEREN WENIGER ODER DEM ERSTGEBORENEN EINEN GLEICHEN ANTEILZUTEILT, SO SIND SEINE WORTE GÜLTIG; SAGT ER ABER: ALS ERBSCHAFT, SO HAT ER NICHTS GESAGT; SCHRIEB ERAUCH ‘ALS WENN EINER VERFÜGT HAT, DASS JEMAND IHN BEERBE, WÄHREND EINE TOCHTER VORHANDEN IST, ODER DASS SEINE TOCHTER IHN BEERBE, WÄHREND EIN SOHN VORHANDEN IST, SO SIND SEINE WORTE NICHTIG, WEIL DIES EINER BESTIMMUNG DER TORA ZUWIDERLÄUFT. R. JOḤANAN B. BEROQA SAGTE: SAGTE ER DIESVON EINEM, DERANWARTSCHAFT HAT, IHN ZU BEERBEN, SO SIND SEINE WORTE GÜLTIG; WENN ABER VON EINEM, DER KEINE ANWARTSCHAFT HAT, IHN ZU BEERBEN, SO SIND SEINE WORTE NICHTIG. WENN JEMAND SEIN VERMÖGEN FREMDEN VERSCHRIEBEN UND SEINE SÖHNE ÜBERGANGEN HAT, SO IST DAS, WAS ER GETAN HAT, GÜLTIG, NUR SIND DIE WEISEN MIT IHM UNZUFRIEDEN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, BETRAGEN SICH SEINE SÖHNE NICHT NACH GEBÜHR, SO SEI SEINER ZUM GUTEN GEDACHT.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SAGT: DIESER IST MEIN SOHN, SO IST ER GLAUBHAFT; WENN: DIESER IST MEIN BRUDER, SO IST ER NICHTGLAUBHAFT; JEDOCH ERHÄLT DIESER MIT IHM VON SEINEMANTEILE. STIRBT DIESER, SO GELANGT DAS VERMÖGEN AN SEINE FRÜHERE STELLE; FIEL IHM VERMÖGEN VON ANDERER SEITE ZU, SO ERBEN SEINE BRÜDER MIT IHM. WENN JEMAND GESTORBEN IST UND EIN TESTAMENT AN SEINE HÜFTE GEBUNDEN GEFUNDEN WIRD, SO IST DIES NICHTS. HAT ERDAMIT EINEM ETWASZUGEEIGNET, EINERLEI OB DIESER ZU DEN ERBEN GEHÖRT ODER NICHT ZU DEN ERBEN GEHÖRT, SO SIND SEINE WORTE GÜLTIG.",
+ "WENN JEMAND ERWACHSENE UND UNERWACHSENE SÖHNE HINTERLASSEN HAT, SO WERDEN DIE ERWACHSENEN NICHT AUF RECHNUNG DER UNERWACHSENENUNTERHALTEN, UND DIE UNERWACHSENEN WERDEN NICHT AUF RECHNUNG DER ERWACHSENENERNÄHRT, VIELMEHR TEILEN SIE GLEICHMÄSSIG. HEIRATENDIE ERWACHSENEN, SO ENTNEHMENAUCH DIE UNERWACHSENEN. SAGEN DIE UNERWACHSENEN: WIR WOLLEN ENTNEHMEN, WIE IHR BEREITS ENTNOMMENHABT, SO HÖRE MAN NICHT AUF SIE; VIELMEHR IST, WAS DER VATER DIESEN BEREITS GEGEBEN HAT, GEGEBEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND ERWACHSENE UND UNERWACHSENE TÖCHTER HINTERLASSEN HAT, SO WERDE DIE ERWACHSENEN NICHT UNTERHALTEN AUF RECHNUNG DER UNERWACHSENEN, UND DIE UNERWACHSENEN WERDEN NICHT AUF RECHNUNG DER ERWACHSENEN ERNÄHRT; VIELMEHR TEILEN SIE GLEICHMÄSSIG. HEIRATEN DIE ERWACHSENEN, SO ENTNEHMEN AUCH DIE UNERWACHSENEN. SAGEN DIE UNERWACHSENEN: WIR WOLLEN ENTNEHMEN, WIE IHR BEREITS ENTNOMMEN HABT, SO HÖRE MAN NICHT AUF SIE. IN FOLGENDEM HABEN DIE TÖCHTER EIN VORRECHT VOR DEN SÖHNEN: DIE TÖCHTER WERDEN UNTERHALTEN AUF RECHNUNG DER SÖHNE, NICHT ABER WERDEN SIE AUF RECHNUNG DER TÖCHTER UNTERHALTEN. WENN JEMAND ERWACHSENE UND UNERWACHSENE SÖHNE HINTERLASSEN HAT, SO WERDEN DIE ERWACHSENEN NICHT AUF RECHNUNG DER UNERWACHSENENUNTERHALTEN, UND DIE UNERWACHSENEN WERDEN NICHT AUF RECHNUNG DER ERWACHSENENERNÄHRT, VIELMEHR TEILEN SIE GLEICHMÄSSIG. HEIRATENDIE ERWACHSENEN, SO ENTNEHMENAUCH DIE UNERWACHSENEN. SAGEN DIE UNERWACHSENEN: WIR WOLLEN ENTNEHMEN, WIE IHR BEREITS ENTNOMMENHABT, SO HÖRE MAN NICHT AUF SIE; VIELMEHR IST, WAS DER VATER DIESEN BEREITS GEGEBEN HAT, GEGEBEN. WENN JEMAND ERWACHSENE UND UNERWACHSENE TÖCHTER HINTERLASSEN HAT, SO WERDE DIE ERWACHSENEN NICHT UNTERHALTEN AUF RECHNUNG DER UNERWACHSENEN, UND DIE UNERWACHSENEN WERDEN NICHT AUF RECHNUNG DER ERWACHSENEN ERNÄHRT; VIELMEHR TEILEN SIE GLEICHMÄSSIG. HEIRATEN DIE ERWACHSENEN, SO ENTNEHMEN AUCH DIE UNERWACHSENEN. SAGEN DIE UNERWACHSENEN: WIR WOLLEN ENTNEHMEN, WIE IHR BEREITS ENTNOMMEN HABT, SO HÖRE MAN NICHT AUF SIE. IN FOLGENDEM HABEN DIE TÖCHTER EIN VORRECHT VOR DEN SÖHNEN: DIE TÖCHTER WERDEN UNTERHALTEN AUF RECHNUNG DER SÖHNE, NICHT ABER WERDEN SIE AUF RECHNUNG DER TÖCHTER UNTERHALTEN."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WENN JEMAND GESTORBEN IST UND SÖHNE UND TÖCHTER HINTERLASSEN HAT, SO ERBEN, WENN EIN GROSSES VERMÖGEN VORHANDEN IST, DIE SÖHNE, UND DIE TÖCHTER WERDEN UNTERHALTEN; IST ABER NUR EIN GERINGES VERMÖGEN VORHANDEN, SO WERDEN DIE TÖCHTER UNTERHALTEN UND DIE SÖHNE MÖGEN AN DEN TÜREN BETTELN. ADMON SAGTE: HABE ICH DENN, WEIL ICH MÄNNLICHEN GESCHLECHTES BIN, VERLUST ZU ERLEIDEN!? HIERZU SAGTE R. GAMLIÉL: MIR LEUCHTEN DIE WORTE ADMONS EIN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SÖHNE, TÖCHTER UND EINEN GESCHLECHTSLOSEN HINTERLASSEN HAT, SO KÖNNEN IHN, WENN ES EIN GROSSES VERMÖGENIST, DIE MÄNNLICHEN KINDER ZU DEN WEIBLICHEN DRÄNGEN, UND WENN ES EIN GERINGES VERMÖGENIST, DIE WEIBLICHEN ZU DEN MÄNNLICHEN DRÄNGEN. WENN JEMAND GESAGT HAT: GEBIERT MEINE FRAU EINEN KNABEN, SO SOLL ER EINE MINEERHALTEN, UND SIE EINEN KNABEN GEBIERT, SO ERHÄLT ER EINE MINE. SAGTE ER: WENN EIN MÄDCHEN, ZWEIHUNDERT ZUZ, UND GEBIERT SIE EIN MÄDCHEN, SO ERHÄLT ES ZWEIHUNDERT ZÜZ. SAGTE ER: WENN EINEN KNABEN, EINE MINE, WENN EIN MÄDCHEN, ZWEIHUNDERT ZÜZ, UND GEBIERT SIE EINEN KNABEN UND EIN MÄDCHEN, SO ERHÄLT DER KNABE EINE MINE UND DAS MÄDCHEN ZWEIHUNDERT ZUZ; GEBIERT SIE EINEN GESCHLECHTSLOSEN, SO ERHÄLT ER NICHTS. SAGTE ER ABER, WAS MEINE FRAU GEBIERT, SOLL ERHALTEN, SO ERHÄLT ES AUCH DIESER. IST KEIN ANDERER ERBE ALS DIESER VORHANDEN, SO ERBT ER ALLES.",
+ "WENN JEMAND ERWACHSENE UND UNERWACHSENE KINDER HINTERLASSEN HAT, UND DIE ERWACHSENEN DIE GÜTER MELIORIERTHABEN, SO HABEN SIE FÜR DIE MASSE MELIORIERT. WENN SIE ABER GESAGTHABEN: SEHT, WAS UNSER VATER HINTERLASSEN HAT, WIR WOLLEN ES BEARBEITENUND DEN ERTRAG GENIESSEN, SO HABEN SIE ES FÜR SICHMELIORIERT. EBENSO HAT EINE FRAU, WENN SIE DIE GÜTERMELIORIERT HAT, DIESE FÜR DIE MASSE MELIORIERT; WENN SIE ABER GESAGT HAT: SEHT, WAS MEIN MANN MIR HINTERLASSEN HAT, ICH WILL ES BEARBEITEN UND DEN ERTRAG GENIESSEN, SO HAT SIE ES FÜR SICH MELIORIERT.",
+ "WENN VON BRÜDERN, DIE GEMEINSCHAFTERSIND, EINER ZU EINEM AMTE HERANGEZOGEN WORDENIST, SO IST ER FÜR DIE MASSE HERANGEZOGENWORDEN. WENN EINER ERKRANKT WAR UND SICH KURIEREN LIESS, SO LIESS ER SICH AUF EIGENE KOSTEN KURIEREN. WENN EINIGE DER BRÜDER BEI LEBZEITEN DES VATERS ALS HOCHZEITSKAMERADENEIN GESCHENK GEMACHTHATTEN UND SPÄTER EIN GEGENGESCHENK GEMACHT WIRD, SO KOMMT DIESES IN DIE MASSE, DENN DAS HOCHZEITSGESGHENK KANN DURCH DAS GERICHT EINGEFORDERTWERDEN. WENN ABER JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN KRÜGE WEIN UND ÖL GESCHICKT HAT, SO KANN ES DURCH DAS GERICHT NICHT EINGEFORDERT WERDEN, WEIL DIES NUR EINE LIEBESLEISTUNG IST.",
+ "WENN JEMAND BRAUTGESCHENKE IN DAS HAUS SEINES SCHWIEGERVATERS GESANDT HAT, SELBST WENN ES HUNDERT MINEN SIND, UND ER DA EIN BRÄUTIGAMSMAHL NUR IM WERTE EINES DENARS GEGESSEN HAT, SO KÖNNEN SIE NICHT MEHR ZURÜCKGEFORDERT WERDEN; HAT ER DA KEIN BRÄUTIGAMSMAHL GEGESSEN, SO KÖNNEN SIE ZURÜCKGEFORDERTWERDEN. HAT ER GRÖSSERE GESCHENKE GESANDT, DIE IN DAS HAUS IHRES EHEMANNES ZURÜCKKEHRENSOLLEN, SO KÖNNEN SIE ZURÜCKGEFORDERT WERDEN; WENN ABER KLEINERE GESCHENKE ZUM GEBRAUCHE IM HAUSE IHRES VATERS, SO KÖNNEN SIE NICHT ZURÜCKGEFORDERT WERDEN.",
+ "WENN EIN STERBENSKRANKER ALL SEINE GÜTER ANDEREN VERSCHRIEBEN UND ETWAS ACKERLAND ZURÜCKBEHALTEN HAT, SO ISTSEINE SCHENKUNG GÜLTIG; HAT ER ABER KEIN STÜCKCHEN ACKERLAND ZURÜCKBEHALTEN, SO IST SEINE SCHENKUNG UNGÜLTIG. WENN DARINNICHT GESCHRIEBEN IST, DASS ER STERBENSKRANK WAR, UND ERSAGT, ER SEI STERBENSKRANK GEWESEN, JENEABER SAGEN, ER SEI GESUNDGEWESEN, SO MUSS ER DEN BEWEIS ERBRINGEN, DASS ER STERBENSKRANK WAR – SO R. MEÍR; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, WER VOM ANDEREN FORDERT, HABE DEN BEWEIS ZU ERBRINGEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEIN VERMÖGEN MÜNDLICH VERTEILT, SO WERDEN, WIE R. ELIE͑ZERSAGT, EINERLEI OB ER GESUND ODER GEFÄHRLICH KRANK IST, GÜTER, DIE EINE SICHERHEITGEWÄHREN, DURCH GELD, URKUNDE ODER BESITZNAHME, UND DIE KEINE SICHERHEITGEWÄHREN, NUR DURCH DAS ANSICHZIEHEN GEEIGNET. SIE SPRACHEN ZU IHM: EINST VERFÜGTE DIE MUTTER DER SÖHNE ROKHELS, DIE KRANK DARNIEDERLAG, DASS MAN IHR ÜBERGEWAND IM WERTE VON ZWÖLF MINEN IHRER TOCHTER GEBE, UND ALS SIE STARB, ERFÜLLTE MANIHRE WORTE. ER ERWIDERTE IHNEN: DIE SÖHNE ROKHELS MÖGE IHRE MUTTER BEGRABEN. DIE WEISEN SAGEN, AM ŠABBATH SEIEN SEINEWORTE GÜLTIG, WEIL ER DANN NICHT SCHREIBEN KANN, NICHT ABER AM WOCHENTAGE. R. JEHOŠUA͑ SAGTE: WENN SIE DIES HINSICHTLICH DES ŠABBATHSGESAGT HABEN, UM WIEVIEL MEHR GILT DIES VOM WOCHENTAGE. DESGLEICHEN AUCH: MAN KANN ETWAS FÜR EINEN MINDERJÄHRIGENERWERBEN, NICHT ABER FÜR EINEN ERWACHSENEN — SO R. ELIE͑ZER. R. JEHOŠUA͑ SAGTE: WENN SIE DIES VOW EINEM MINDERJÄHRIGEN GESAGT HABEN, UM WIEVIEL MEHR GILT DIES VON EINEM ERWACHSENEN.",
+ "WENN ÜBER EINEN, DER DIE MORGENGABE SEINER FRAU ODER EINE GELDSCHULD ZU BEZAHLENHAT, UND SEINEN VATER, ODER ÜBER IHN UND SEINEN VERERBER DAS HAUS EINGESTÜRZT IST, UND DIE ERBEN DES VATERS SAGEN, DER SOHN SEI ZUERSTUND NACHHER DER VATER GESTORBEN, UND DIE GLÄUBIGER SAGEN, DER VATER SEI ZUERST UND NACHHER DER SOHN GESTORBEN, SO IST, WIE DIE SCHULE ŠAMMAJS SAGT, ZU TEILEN; DIE SCHULE HILLELS SAGT, DIE GÜTER BLEIBEN BEI IHREM BESITZER.",
+ "WENN ÜBER EINEN UND SEINE FRAU DAS HAUS EINGESTÜRZT IST, UND DIE ERBEN DES MANNES SAGEN, DIE FRAU SEI ZUERSTUND NACHHER DER MANN GESTORBEN, UND DIE ERBEN DER FRAU SAGEN, DER MANN SEI ZUERST UND NACHHER DIE FRAU GESTORBEN, SO MÜSSEN SIE, WIE DIE SCHULE ŠAMMAJS SAGT, TEILEN; DIE SCHULE HILLELS SAGT, DIE GÜTER VERBLEIBEN BEI IHREM BESITZER; DIE MORGENGABE BLEIBT IM BESITZE DER ERBEN DES MANNES, UND DIE MIT IHR EIN- UND AUSGEHENDEN GÜTERVERBLEIBEN IM BESITZE DER ERBEN DES VATERS. ",
+ "WENN ÜBER EINEN UND SEINE MUTTER DAS HAUS EINGESTÜRZTIST, SO STIMMEN DIESE UND JENE ÜBEREIN, DASS ZU TEILEN SEI. R. A͑QIBA SAGTE: IN DIESEM FALLE PFLICHTE ICH BEI, DASS DIE GÜTER IN IHREM BESITZE VERBLEIBEN. BEN A͑ZAJ SPRACH ZU IHM: WIR GRÄMEN UNS ÜBER DEN FALL, ÜBER DEN SIE STREITEN, UND DU KOMMST UNS NOCH MIT EINEM STREITE ÜBER EINEN FALL, ÜBER DEN SIE ÜBEREINSTIMMEN."
+ ],
+ [
+ "DIE EINFACHE URKUNDE HAT DIE ZEUGEN AUF DER INNENSEITE UND DIE GEFALTETE HAT DIE ZEUGEN AUF DER RÜCKSEITE. WENN BEI EINER EINFACHEN DIE ZEUGEN AUF DER RÜCKSEITE ODER BEI EINER GEFALTETEN DIE ZEUGEN AUF DER INNENSEITE UNTERSCHRIEBEN SIND, SO SIND SIE BEIDE UNGÜLTIG. R. ḤANINA B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, WENN BEI EINER GEFALTETEN DIE ZEUGEN AUF DER INNENSEITE UNTERSCHRIEBEN SIND, SO IST SIE GÜLTIG, WEIL MAN AUS IHR EINE EINFACHE MACHEN KANN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, ALLES NACH DEM LANDESBRAUCHE.",
+ "BEI EINER EINFACHEN URKUNDE SIND ZWEI ZEUGEN ERFORDERLICH, BEI EINER GEFALTETEN SIND DREI ERFORDERLICH. WENN AUF EINER EINFACHEN NUR EIN ZEUGE UNTERSCHRIEBEN IST, ODER AUF EINER GEFALTETEN NUR ZWEI ZEUGEN UNTERSCHRIEBEN SIND, SO SIND SIE BEIDE UNGÜLTIG. WENN DARINGESCHRIEBEN STEHT: HUNDERT ZUZ GLEICH ZWANZIGSELA͑, SO ERHÄLT ER NUR ZWANZIG, UND WENN: HUNDERT ZUZ GLEICH DREISSIG SELA͑, SO ERHÄLT ER NUR EINE MINE. STEHT DARIN: SILBERNE ZUZ, GLEICH … , DIE ZAHL VERWISCHT, SO SIND ES NICHT WENIGER ALS ZWEI; WENN: SILBERNE SELAI͑M, GLEICH … , DIE ZAHL VERWISCHT, SO SIND ES NICHT WENIGER ALS ZWEI; WENN: DARIKEN, GLEICH … , DIE ZAHL VERWISCHT, SO SIND ES NICHT WENIGER ALS ZWEI. WENN ES OBEN EINE MINE UND UNTENZWEIHUNDERT ZUZ, ODER OBEN ZWEIHUNDERT UND UNTEN EINE MINE HEISST, SO RICHTE MAN SICH STETS NACH DEM UNTEREN. WOZU SCHREIBT MAN DEMNACH DAS OBERE? — DAMIT, WENN VOM UNTEREN EIN BUCHSTABE VERWISCHT WIRD, MAN ES AUS DEM OBEREN ENTNEHME.",
+ "MAN SCHREIBE DEM MANNE EINEN SCHEIDEBRIEF, AUCH WENN DIE FRAU NICHT DABEI IST, UND DER FRAU EINE QUITTUNG, AUCH WENN DER MANN NICHT DABEI IST, NUR MUSS MAN SIE KENNEN; DIE GEBÜHRZAHLE DER MANN. MAN SCHREIBE DEM SCHULDNER EINEN SCHULDSCHEIN, AUCH WENN DER GLÄUBIGER NICHT DABEI IST; DEM GLÄUBIGER JEDOCH NUR DANN, WENN DER SCHULDNER DABEI IST; DIE GEBÜHR ZAHLE DER SCHULDNER. MAN SCHREIBE DEM VERKÄUFER EINEN KAUFSCHEIN, AUCH WENN DER KÄUFER NICHT DABEI IST; DEM KÄUFER JEDOCH NUR DANN, WENN DER VERKÄUFER DABEI IST; DIE GEBÜHR ZAHLE DER KÄUFER.",
+ "VERLOBUNGS- UND EHEVERTRÄGE SCHREIBE MAN NUR MIT BEIDER EINWILLIGUNG; DIE GEBÜHR ZAHLE DER BRÄUTIGAM. QUOTENPACHT- UND PACHTVERTRÄGE SCHREIBE MAN NUR MIT ZUSTIMMUNG BEIDER; DIE GEBÜHR ZAHLE DER PÄCHTER. WAHLURKUNDEN UND ANDERE GERICHTLICHE SCHRIFTSTÜCKE SCHREIBE MAN NUR MIT ZUSTIMMUNG BEIDER, UND BEIDE ZAHLEN DIE GEBÜHR. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, MAN SCHREIBE FÜR BEIDE ZWEI URKUNDEN, FÜR DEN EINEN BESONDERS UND FÜR DEN ANDEREN BESONDERS.",
+ "WENN JEMAND EINEN TEIL SEINER SCHULD BEZAHLT, DEN SCHULDSCHEIN BEI EINEM DRITTEN HINTERLEGT, UND ZU DIESEM SAGT: WENN ICH DIR VON HEUTE BIS ZU JENEM TAGE DEN REST NICHTZAHLE, SO GIB IHM DEN SCHULDSCHEINZURÜCK, UND DIESE ZEIT HERANREICHT UND ER NICHT ZAHLT, SO GEBE ER IHN IHM, WIE R. JOSE SAGT; R. JEHUDA SAGT, ER GEBE IHN IHM NICHT.",
+ "WENN EINEM EIN SCHULDSCHEIN AUSGELÖSCHT WORDEN IST, SO LASSE ER IHMDURCH ZEUGEN BESTÄTIGEN UND KOMME AUFS GERICHT, WO IHM FOLGENDE BEGLAUBIGUNG AUSGESTELLT WIRD: DEM N., SOHNE DES N., IST EIN SCHEIN VON DEM UND DEM TAGEAUSGELÖSCHT WORDEN, UND N. UND N. WAREN ALS ZEUGEN UNTERSCHRIEBEN. WER EINEN TEIL SEINER SCHULD BEZAHLT, KANN, WIE R. JEHUDA SAGT, UMTAUSCHEN; R. JOSE SAGT, JENER SCHREIBE IHM EINE QUITTUNG. R. JEHUDA SPRACH: SOMIT MUSS DIESER SEINE QUITTUNG VOR MÄUSEN HÜTEN! R. JOSE ERWIDERTE IHM: SO IST ES FÜR JENEN BESSER UND SEIN RECHT DARF NICHT GESCHMÄLERT WERDEN.",
+ "WENN ZWEI BRÜDERN, EINER REICH UND EINER ARM, IHR VATER EIN BADEHAUS ODER EINE ÖLPRESSE HINTERLASSEN HAT, SO IST, WENN SIE ZUM VERMIETEN ERRICHTET SIND, DER MIETZINS ZU TEILEN; WENN SIE ABER ZUM EIGENEN GEBRAUCHE ERRICHTET SIND, SO KANN DER REICHE ZUM ARMEN SAGEN: HALTE DIR SKLAVEN, DIE DIR IM BADE DIENSTE LEISTEN, KAUFE DIR OLIVEN UND VERARBEITE SIE IN DER ÖLPRESSE. WENN ZWEI IN EINER STADT WOHNEN UND DER EINE JOSEPH BEN ŠIMO͑N HEISST UND DER ANDERE EBENFALLS JOSEPH BEN ŠIMO͑N HEISST, SO KANN KEINER VON IHNEN EINEN SCHULDSCHEIN AUF DEN ANDERENPRÄSENTIEREN, UND AUCH EIN ANDERER KANN AUF SIE KEINEN SCHULDSCHEINPRÄSENTIEREN. WENN JEMAND UNTER SEINEN SCHEINEN EINE QUITTUNG FINDET, DER SCHULDSCHEIN DES JOSEPH BEN ŠIMO͑N SEI BEZAHLT, SO SIND BEIDER SCHULDSCHEINE BEZAHLT. WAS MACHEN SIENUN? SIE GEBEN DIE DRITTE GENERATIONAN, UND WENN AUCH DIE DRITTE DIE GLEICHE IST, SO GEBEN SIE DIE BEZEICHNUNGAN, UND WENN SIE GLEICHE BEZEICHNUNGEN HABEN, SO SCHREIBEN SIE PRIESTER. WENN JEMANDZU SEINEM SOHNE GESAGT HAT: EINER UNTER MEINEN SCHULDSCHEINENIST BEZAHLT, ICH WEISS ABER NICHT, WELCHER, SO GELTEN ALL SEINE SCHULDSCHEINEALS BEZAHLT; BEFINDEN SICH DARUNTER ZWEI SCHULDSCHEINE AUF EINEN, SO GILT DER GRÖSSERE ALS BEZAHLT UND DER KLEINERE ALS NICHT BEZAHLT. ' WER SEINEM NÄCHSTEN AUF VERANLASSUNG EINES BÜRGEN GELD GELIEHEN HAT, KANN KEINE ZAHLUNG VOM BÜRGENVERLANGEN; WENN ER ABER GESAGT HAT: MIT DER BEDINGUNG, DASS ICH ZAHLUNG EINFORDERE, VON WEM ES MIR BELIEBT, SO KANN ER AUCH VOM BÜRGEN ZAHLUNG VERLANGEN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, HAT DER SCHULDNER VERMÖGEN, SO KÖNNE ER OB SO ODER SO KEINE ZAHLUNG VOM BÜRGEN VERLANGEN. DESGLEICHEN SAGTE AUCH R. SIMON B. GAMLIÉL: WENN JEMAND EINER FRAU FÜR IHRE MORGENGABE GEBÜRGT HAT UND IHR MANN SICH VON IHR SCHEIDEN LÄSST, SO MUSS ER SICH JEDEN GENUSS VON IHR ABGELOBEN, DENN SIE KÖNNEN SONST EINE FRAUDULÖSE ABMACHUNG ÜBER DAS VERMÖGEN VON JENEM TREFFENUND ER NACHHER SEINE FRAU WIEDER HEIRATEN.",
+ "viii WER SEINEM NÄCHSTEN GELD AUF EINEN SCHULDSCHEIN GELIEHEN HAT, KANN ES VON VERÄUSSERTEN GÜTERNEINFORDERN, WENN ABER VOR ZEUGEN, SO KANN ER ES NUR VON FREIEN GÜTERNEINFORDERN. WER EINEM SEINE UNTERSCHRIFTVORZEIGT, DASS ER IHM GELD SCHULDE, KANN ES VON FREIEN GÜTERN EINFORDERN. IST DER BÜRGE UNTER DEN ZEUGENUNTERSCHRIFTENUNTERZEICHNET, SO KANN DER GLÄUBIGER NUR VON DESSEN FREIEN GÜTERNEINFORDERN. EINST KAM EIN SOLCHER FALL VOR R. JIŠMA͑ÉL, UND ER ENTSCHIED, DASS ER VON DESSEN FREIEN GÜTERN EINFORDERN KÖNNE. DA SPRACH BEN NANNOS ZU IHM: ER KANN WEDER VON VERKAUFTEN NOCH VON FREIEN GÜTERN EINFORDERN. JENER ENTGEGNETE: WESHALB DENN? DIESER ERWIDERTE: WENN JEMAND EINEN AUF DER STRASSE WÜRGTUND EINER HERANKOMMT UND ZU IHM SAGT: LASSIHN, SO IST ER JA ERSATZFREI, DENN JENER HATTE ES IHM NICHT IM VERTRAUEN AUF DIESENGELIEHEN. EIN BÜRGE IST NUR IN DEM FALLE HAFTBAR, WENN ER GESAGT HAT: BORGE IHM, ICH ZAHLE ES DIR ZURÜCK; ER BORGTE ES IHM IM VERTRAUEN AUF DIESEN. R. JIŠMA͑ÉL SAGTE: WER WEISE WERDEN WILL, BEFASSE SICH MIT DEM ZIVILRECHTE, DENN DU HAST KEIN GEBIET IN DER TORA, DAS UMFASSENDER WÄRE ALS DIESES; ES GLEICHT EINER SPRUDELNDEN QUELLE. UND WER SICH MIT DEM ZIVILRECHTE BEFASSEN WILL, PFLEGE UMGANGMIT ŠIMO͑N B. NANNOS."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45d0438379b95d2c8ed5a07114ff97ac8b94d0d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json
@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Batra",
+ "versionSource": "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1",
+ "versionTitle": "William Davidson Edition - English",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 2.0,
+ "license": "CC-BY-NC",
+ "versionNotes": "English from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz",
+ "shortVersionTitle": "Koren - Steinsaltz",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא בתרא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Partners who wished to make a partition [meḥitza] in a jointly owned courtyard build the wall for the partition in the middle of the courtyard. What is this wall fashioned from? In a place where it is customary to build such a wall with non-chiseled stone [gevil], or chiseled stone [gazit], or small bricks [kefisin], or large bricks [leveinim], they must build the wall with that material. Everything is in accordance with the regional custom. If they build the wall with non-chiseled stone, this partner provides three handbreadths of his portion of the courtyard and that partner provides three handbreadths, since the thickness of such a wall is six handbreadths. If they build the wall with chiseled stone, this partner provides two and a half handbreadths and that partner provides two and a half handbreadths, since such a wall is five handbreadths thick. If they build the wall with small bricks, this one provides two handbreadths and that one provides two handbreadths, since the thickness of such a wall is four handbreadths. If they build with large bricks, this one provides one and a half handbreadths and that one provides one and a half handbreadths, since the thickness of such a wall is three handbreadths. Therefore, if the wall later falls, the assumption is that the space where the wall stood and the stones belong to both of them, to be divided equally.",
+ "And similarly with regard to a garden, in a place where it is customary to build a partition in the middle of a garden jointly owned by two people, and one of them wishes to build such a partition, the court obligates his neighbor to join in building the partition. But with regard to an expanse of fields [babbika], in a place where it is customary not to build a partition between two people’s fields, and one person wishes to build a partition between his field and that of his neighbor, the court does not obligate his neighbor to build such a partition. Rather, if one person wishes to erect a partition, he must withdraw into his own field and build the partition there. And he makes a border mark on the outer side of the barrier facing his neighbor’s property, indicating that he built the entire structure of his own materials and on his own land. Therefore, if the wall later falls, the assumption is that the space where the wall stood and the stones belong only to him, as is indicated by the mark on the wall. Nevertheless, in a place where it is not customary to build a partition between two people’s fields, if they made such a partition with the agreement of the two of them, they build it in the middle, i.e., on the property line, and make a border mark on the one side and on the other side. Therefore, if the wall later falls, the assumption is that the space where the wall stood and the stones belong to both of them, to be divided equally.",
+ "With regard to one who surrounds another on three sides, that is, he owns parcels of land on three sides of the other person’s field, and he built a partition on the first, the second, and the third sides, the court does not obligate the neighbor who owns the inner field to contribute to the construction of the partition if he does not wish to do so. Rabbi Yosei says: If he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions.",
+ "In the case of a dividing wall in a jointly owned courtyard that fell, if one of the owners wishes to rebuild the wall, the court obligates the other owner to build the wall with him up to a height of four cubits. If after the wall was built one of the neighbors claims he alone constructed it and the other did not participate in its building, the latter is nevertheless presumed to have given his share of the money, unless the claimant brings proof that the other did not give his part. The court does not obligate the reluctant neighbor to contribute to the building of the wall higher than four cubits. But if the reluctant neighbor built another wall close to the wall that had been built higher than four cubits, in order to set a roof over the room that was thereby created, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the rebuilt wall, even though he has not yet set a roof over it. Since he has demonstrated his desire to make use of what his neighbor built, he must participate in the cost of its construction. If the builder of the first wall later claims that he did not receive payment from his neighbor, the neighbor is presumed not to have given his share of the money, unless he brings proof that he did in fact give money for the building of the wall.",
+ "The residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: Not all courtyards require a gatehouse, and each courtyard must be considered on its own in accordance with its specific needs. Similarly, the residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to contribute to the building of a wall, double doors, and a crossbar for the city. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: Not all towns require a wall. With regard to this latter obligation, the mishna asks: How long must one live in the city to be considered like one of the people of the city and therefore obligated to contribute to these expenses? Twelve months. But if he bought himself a residence in the city, he is immediately considered like one of the people of the city.",
+ "The court does not divide a courtyard at the request of one of the joint owners unless there will be in it four by four cubits for this one and four by four cubits for that one, i.e., this minimum area for each of the joint owners. And the court does not divide a jointly owned field unless there is space in it to plant nine kav of seed for this one and nine kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court does not divide a field unless there is space in it to plant nine half-kav of seed for this one and nine half-kav of seed for that one. And the court does not divide a jointly owned garden unless there is space in it to plant a half-kav of seed for this one and a half-kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Akiva says that half that amount is sufficient, i.e., the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova]. Similarly, the court does not divide a hall [hateraklin], a drawing room, a dovecote, a cloak, a bathhouse, an olive press, and an irrigated field unless there is enough for this one to use the property in the usual manner and enough for that one to use the property in the usual manner. This is the principle: Anything for which when it is divided, each of the parts is large enough to retain the name of the original item, the court divides it. But if the parts will not retain the original name, the court does not divide it. When does this rule apply? It applies when the joint owners do not both wish to divide the item; when only one of the owners wishes to divide the property, he cannot force the other to do so. But when both of them wish to divide the item, they may divide it, even if each of the owners will receive less than the amounts specified above. But in the case of sacred writings, i.e., a scroll of any of the twenty-four books of the Bible, that were inherited by two people, they may not divide them, even if both of them wish to do so, because it would be a show of disrespect to cut the scroll in half."
+ ],
+ [
+ "A person may not dig a pit close to the pit of another, in order to avoid damaging the latter’s pit. And similarly, one may not dig a ditch, nor a cave, i.e., a covered pit, nor a water channel, nor a launderer’s pond, which is a pit used for washing clothes, unless he distanced all of these three handbreadths from the wall of another and he plasters lime on the place where there is water. And one must distance the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, e.g., the refuse of olives from which oil has been squeezed, and animal manure, and salt, and lime, and rocks three handbreadths from the wall of another, as all these items produce heat and can damage the wall. Or, alternatively, he may plaster the wall with lime to prevent damage. One must likewise distance seeds, i.e., one may not plant seeds, and one may not operate the plow, and one must eliminate urine, three handbreadths from the wall of another. The mishna continues: And one must distance a mill from a neighbor’s wall by three handbreadths from the lower stone of the mill, which is four handbreadths from the smaller upper stone of the mill. And there must be a distance of three handbreadths from the protruding base [hakalya] of an oven until the wall, which is four handbreadths from the narrow upper rim [hassafa] of the oven.",
+ "A person may not set up an oven inside a house unless there is a space four cubits high above it, i.e., between the top of the oven and the ceiling, to avoid burning the ceiling, which serves as the floor of the residence above. If one was setting up an oven in the upper story, there must be a plaster floor beneath it, which serves as the ceiling of the lower story, at least three handbreadths thick, so that the ceiling below does not burn. And in the case of a stove the plaster floor must be at least one handbreadth thick. And if he causes damage in any case, he pays compensation for that which he damaged. Rabbi Shimon says: They said all of these measurements to teach only that if he causes damage he is exempt from paying, as he took all reasonable precautions. ",
+ "A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the storeroom of another, and he may not establish a cattle barn there, as these produce heat, smoke, and odors, which rise and damage the items in the storeroom. The mishna comments: In truth, the halakha is that in the case of a storeroom of wine the Sages rendered it permitted to set up a bakery and a dye shop beneath, as the heat that rises does not damage the wine. But they did not render it permitted to establish a cattle barn, because its odor damages the wine. If a resident wants to open a store in his courtyard, his neighbor can protest to prevent him from doing so and say to him: I am unable to sleep due to the sound of people entering the store and the sound of people exiting. But one may fashion utensils in his house and go out and sell them in the market, despite the fact that he is not allowed to set up a store in the courtyard, and the neighbor cannot protest against him doing so and say to him: I am unable to sleep due to the sound of the hammer you use to fashion utensils, nor can he say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the mill that you use to grind, nor can he say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the children. It is permitted for one to make reasonable use of his own home.",
+ "One whose wall was close to the wall of another may not build another wall close to the neighbor’s wall unless he distances it four cubits from the wall of the neighbor. And one who desires to build a wall opposite the windows of a neighbor’s house must distance the wall four cubits from the windows, whether above, below, or opposite. ",
+ "One must distance his ladder four cubits from a neighbor’s dovecote so that a mongoose will not be able to jump from the ladder to the dovecote and devour the birds. And one must distance his wall four cubits from a roof gutter, so that the neighbor can lean a ladder in the empty space to clean and repair the gutter. One must distance a dovecote fifty cubits from the city to prevent doves from eating seeds in the town. And a person should not establish a dovecote within his own property unless he has fifty cubits in each direction between the dovecote and the edge of his property. Rabbi Yehuda says that one must have surrounding the dovecote the area required for sowing four kor of seed on each side, which generally extends as far as a dove flies in a single flight. And if one bought the dovecote with the land, he has the acquired privilege of its use even if it has surrounding it only the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova] around it, and he need not remove it from there.",
+ "With regard to a dove chick [nippul] that was found within fifty cubits of a dovecote, it belongs to the owner of the dovecote. If it was found beyond fifty cubits from a dovecote, it belongs to its finder. In a case where it was found between two dovecotes, if it was close to this one, it belongs to the owner of this dovecote; if it was close to that one, it belongs to the owner of that dovecote. If it was half and half, i.e., equidistant from the two dovecotes, the two owners divide the value of the chick. ",
+ "One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from the city, and in the cases of a carob tree and of a sycamore tree, which have a great many branches, they must be distanced fifty cubits. Abba Shaul says: Every barren tree must be distanced fifty cubits. And if the city preceded the tree, as one later planted the tree alongside the city, he cuts down the tree, and the city does not give money to the tree’s owner in compensation. And if the tree preceded the city, which expanded after one planted the tree until it reached the tree, he cuts down the tree and the city gives money to its owner. If it is uncertain whether this one was first or that one was first, he cuts down the tree and the city does not give money.",
+ "One must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city, so that the chaff will not harm the city’s residents. Furthermore, a person should not establish a permanent threshing floor even on his own property unless he has fifty cubits of open space in every direction. And one must distance a threshing floor from the plantings of another and from another’s plowed field far enough that it does not cause damage.",
+ "One must distance animal carcasses, and graves, and a tannery [haburseki], a place where hides are processed, fifty cubits from the city. One may establish a tannery only on the east side of the city, because winds usually blow from the west and the foul smells would therefore be blown away from the residential area. Rabbi Akiva says: One may establish a tannery on any side of a city except for the west, as the winds blowing from that direction will bring the odors into the city, and one must distance it fifty cubits from the city. ",
+ "One must distance from vegetables water in which flax is steeped, because this water ruins them; and likewise one must distance leeks from onions, and mustard from bees. And Rabbi Yosei permits one not to do so in the case of mustard.",
+ "One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a cistern, and in the case of a carob and of a sycamore tree, whose roots extend farther, one must distance the tree fifty cubits. This is the halakha whether the cistern or tree is located above or to the side of the other. If the digging of the cistern preceded the tree, the owner of the tree cuts down the tree and the owner of the cistern pays him money. And if the tree preceded the cistern the owner of the tree need not cut down the tree. If it is uncertain whether this came first or that came first, the owner of the tree need not cut down the tree. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the cistern preceded the tree, the owner of the tree need not cut down the tree. This is due to the fact that this one digs in his own property, and that one plants in his own property.",
+ "A person may not plant a tree near the field of another unless he distances it four cubits from the field. This is the case whether he is planting grapevines or any kind of tree. If there was a fence between them, this one may place, i.e., plant, his grapevines or trees close to the fence from here, and that one may place, i.e., plant, his produce close to the fence from there. If the roots were spreading into the field of another, the owner of the field may dig to a depth of three handbreadths even if he severs those roots, so that they do not impede his plow. If he was digging a cistern in that spot, or a ditch, or a cave, and he came upon the roots of his neighbor’s tree, he may cut downward normally, and the wood from the roots is his.",
+ "With regard to a tree that leans into the field of another, the neighbor may cut the branches to the height of an ox goad raised over the plow, in places where the land is to be plowed, so that the branches do not impede the use of the plow. And in the case of a carob tree and the case of a sycamore tree, whose abundance of branches cast shade that is harmful to plants, all the branches overhanging one’s property may be removed along the plumb line, i.e., along a line perpendicular to the boundary separating the fields. And if the neighbor’s field is an irrigated field, all branches of the tree are removed along the plumb line. Abba Shaul says: All barren trees are cut along the plumb line. ",
+ "With regard to a tree that extends into the public domain, one cuts its branches so that a camel can pass beneath the tree with its rider sitting on it. Rabbi Yehuda says: One cuts enough branches that a camel loaded with flax or bundles of branches can pass beneath it. Rabbi Shimon says: One cuts all branches of the tree that extend into the public domain along the plumb line, so that they do not hang over the public area at all, due to ritual impurity."
+ ],
+ [
+ "With regard to the presumptive ownership of houses; and of pits; and of ditches; and of caves, which are used to collect water; and of dovecotes; and of bathhouses; and of olive presses; and of irrigated fields, which must be watered by people; and of slaves; and all similar property that constantly, i.e., throughout the year, generates profits, their presumptive ownership is established by working and profiting from them for a duration of three years from day to day. If the one in possession of the property can prove that he worked and profited from it for the previous three full years, there is a presumption that it belongs to him, and would remain in his possession if another were to claim that the property belonged to him or to his ancestors. With regard to a non-irrigated field, i.e., one that is watered by rain, in which produce grows during certain seasons during the year, its presumption of ownership is established in three years, but they are not from day to day, since the fields are not worked and harvested continually throughout the three-year period. Rabbi Yishmael says: Three months of possession in the first year, three months of possession in the last year, and twelve months of possession in the middle, which are eighteen months, suffice to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a non-irrigated field. Rabbi Akiva says: A month of possession in the first year, and a month of possession in the last year, and twelve months of possession in the middle, which are fourteen months, suffice to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a non-irrigated field. Rabbi Yishmael said: In what case is this statement, that eighteen months are required for a non-irrigated field, said? It is said with regard to a white field [bisdeh lavan], i.e., a grain field. But with regard to a field of trees, once he gathered his produce, and then harvested his olives, and then gathered his figs, these three harvests are the equivalent of three years. Since he harvested three types of produce, this is equivalent to having possessed the field for three years.",
+ "There are three independent lands in Eretz Yisrael with regard to establishing presumptive ownership: Judea, and Transjordan, and the Galilee. If the prior owner of the field was in Judea and another took possession of his field in the Galilee, or if he was in the Galilee and another took possession of his field in Judea, the possessor does not establish presumptive ownership until the one possessing the field will be with the prior owner in one province. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages said that establishing presumptive ownership requires three years only in order that if the owner will be in Spain [Aspamya], and another possesses his field for a year, people will go and inform the owner by the end of the next year, and the owner will come back in the following year and take the possessor to court.",
+ "Any possession that is not accompanied by a claim explaining how the possessor became the owner is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. How so? If the prior owner said to the possessor: What are you doing in my land? And the possessor said to him in response: I am in possession of the land because no person ever said anything to me about my being here, i.e., he states no valid claim as to why he would be the owner of the land, his mere use is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. But if the possessor claimed: I am in possession of the land because you sold it to me, or: Because you gave it to me as a gift, or: Because your father sold it to me, or: Because your father gave it to me as a gift, these are valid claims to ownership. In these cases, his possession is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. And one who comes to claim the land based on inheritance does not need a claim explaining why his ancestors had a right to the land. Craftsmen who are in possession of items that they are repairing, and partners, and sharecroppers, and stewards [veha’apotropin] do not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to property in their possession, as their possession is not indicative of ownership. Similarly, a man does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to his wife’s property, and a wife does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to her husband’s property. And a father similarly does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a son’s property, and a son does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a father’s property. A husband and wife, or son and father, use each other’s property freely. Possession is therefore not indicative of ownership. The mishna continues: In what case is this statement, that one establishes the presumption of ownership after profiting from the property for a certain duration, with the exception of the above people, said? It is said in a case of one who has mere possession of the property, which does, in some cases, serve as proof of ownership. But in a case where another person gives one a gift, or there are brothers who divided their inheritance, or there is one who takes possession of the property of a convert who died without heirs and his property is now ownerless, as soon as one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, this is considered taking possession of the property, and it effects acquisition.",
+ "If there were two witnesses testifying on his behalf that he, the possessor of the land, worked and profited from a field for three years, and therefore has presumptive ownership, and they were found to be conspiring witnesses, as it was proven that they were not present to witness the matter about which they had testified, they must pay the true owner of the field the full value of the field that they attempted, through their testimony, to remove from his possession, as it is written in the Torah: “Then shall you do to him, as he had planned to do to his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19). If two witnesses testify that he worked and profited from the field during the first year, another two testify that he worked and profited from it during the second year, and another two testify that he worked and profited from it during the third, and all were found to be conspiring witnesses, payment of the value of the field to the owner is divided among them. If the testimony was given by three brothers, each of whom testify about one year, and another unrelated individual joined with each of the brothers as the second witness, these are three distinct testimonies and they are accepted by the court. If they were to be considered one testimony, it would not be accepted, as brothers may not testify together. But they are one testimony for the purpose of rendering them as conspiring witnesses, and the payment is divided among them.",
+ "These are uses of property that have the means to establish the presumption of ownership, and these are uses of property that do not have the means to establish the presumption of ownership: If one would stand an animal in a courtyard; or if one would place an oven, a millstone, or a stove there; or if one raises chickens in a courtyard, or places his fertilizer in a courtyard, these actions are not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. But if one constructed a partition ten handbreadths high to contain his animal, and similarly if he constructed a partition for his oven, and similarly if he constructed a partition for his stove, and similarly if he constructed a partition for his millstone; or if one brought chickens into the house, or if he fashioned a place in the ground for his fertilizer that is three handbreadths deep or three handbreadths high, these actions are sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.",
+ "With regard to a spout protruding from one’s roof gutter draining water into another’s property, its owner has no means to establish an acquired privilege for its use, but he does have the means to establish an acquired privilege with regard to its place, as the Gemara will explain. With regard to a gutter pipe that traverses the length of the roof, one does have the means to establish an acquired privilege for its use. With regard to an Egyptian ladder, which is small and portable, one has no means to establish an acquired privilege for its use. But with regard to a Tyrian ladder, which is large and fixed in place, one does have the means to establish an acquired privilege for its use. With regard to an Egyptian window, one has no means to establish an acquired privilege for its use; but with regard to a Tyrian window, one does have the means to establish an acquired privilege for its use. What is the defining feature of an Egyptian window? It is any window that is so small that a person’s head is not able to fit inside it. Rabbi Yehuda says: If a window has a frame, even though a person’s head is not able to fit inside it, one does have the means to establish an acquired privilege for its use. With regard to a projection emerging from the wall of one’s house, overhanging a courtyard, one has the means to establish an acquired privilege for its use if it protrudes at least as far as a handbreadth, and the owner of the courtyard can protest its construction. If it protrudes less than a handbreadth, the owner of the house has no means to establish an acquired privilege for its use, and the owner of the courtyard cannot protest its construction.",
+ "A person may not open his windows, i.e., build an opening in a wall to use as a window, into a courtyard belonging to partners, i.e., a courtyard in which he is a partner. If he purchased a house in another, adjacent courtyard, he may not open the house into a courtyard belonging to partners. If he built a loft on top of his house, he may not open it into a courtyard belonging to partners. Rather, if he desired to build a loft, he may build a room within his house, or he may build a loft on top of his house, and open it into his house, not directly into the courtyard. A person may not open an entrance opposite another entrance or a window opposite another window toward a courtyard belonging to partners, so as to ensure that the residents will enjoy a measure of privacy. If there was a small entrance he may not enlarge it. If there was one entrance he may not fashion it into two. But one may open an entrance opposite another entrance or a window opposite another window toward the public domain. Similarly, if there was a small entrance he may enlarge it, and if there was one entrance he may fashion it into two.",
+ "One may not form an empty space be-neath the public domain by digging pits, ditches, or caves. Rabbi Eliezer deems it permitted for one to do so, provided that he places a covering strong enough that a wagon laden with stones would be able to tread on it without breaking it, therefore ensuring that the empty space will not cause any damage to those in the public domain. One may not extend projections or balconies [ugzuztraot] into the public domain. Rather, if he desired to build one he may draw back into his property by moving his wall, and extend the projection to the end of his property line. If one purchased a courtyard in which there are projections and balconies extending into the public domain, this courtyard retains its presumptive status, i.e., the owner has the acquired privilege of their use, and the court does not demand their removal."
+ ],
+ [
+ "One who sells a house without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold the gallery, an extension built above or alongside the main building, and this is so even if the gallery is attached to the house and opens into it. Nor has he sold the room behind the house, even if it is accessible only from inside the house. He has also not sold the roof when it has a parapet ten handbreadths high, as such a roof is considered a separate entity and is therefore not included in the sale of the house. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the parapet has the form of a doorway, that is, if it consists of two upright posts with a beam crossing over them, then even if the parapet is not ten handbreadths high, the roof is not sold together with the house, unless it is specifically included in the sale.",
+ "One who sells a house without specification has sold neither the pit nor the cistern [dut], even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling him the depth and the height of the house, as anything that is not part of the house, like pits and cisterns, must be explicitly mentioned in the contract or else they remain in the seller’s possession. And therefore the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain to reach whatever remains his, because he has sold the area of the house along with the house itself, and he no longer has permission to walk there. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain, as this is certainly included in what he has withheld for himself from the sale. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller says to the buyer in the bill of sale: I am selling you this house apart from the pit and the cistern, he need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain. Since the seller unnecessarily emphasized that the pit and the cistern are not included in the sale, he presumably intended to reserve for himself the right of access to them. If the seller kept the house, but sold the pit and the cistern to another, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain to reach what he has bought. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain.",
+ "One who sells a house has, as part of the sale, sold also the door, but not the key. He has sold the mortar that is fixed in the ground, but not the portable one. He has sold the immovable lower millstone [ha’itzterobil], but not the portable upper stone [hakelet], the funnel into which one pours the grain to be ground. And he has sold neither the oven nor the double stove, as they are deemed movable. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it, and everything that is in it, all these components are sold as part of the sale of the house.",
+ "One who sells a courtyard without specifying what is included in the sale has sold with it the houses, pits, ditches, and caves found in the courtyard, but he has not sold the movable property. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, all these components are sold along with the courtyard, even the movable property. Both in this case, where he executes the sale without specification, and in that case, where he adds the phrase that includes the movable property, he has not sold the bathhouse, nor has he sold the olive press that is in the courtyard, as each is an entity with a discrete purpose and not an integral part of the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells a courtyard without specifying what is included in the sale has sold only the airspace, i.e., the open space, of the courtyard, but nothing found in the courtyard, not even the houses.",
+ "One who sells an olive press without specifying what is included in the sale has sold with it the yam and the memel and the betulot, the immovable elements of the olive press. But he has not sold with it the avirim and the galgal and the kora, the movable utensils of the olive press. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, all these components are sold along with the olive press, even the movable utensils. Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells an olive press has sold the kora as well, as it is the most fundamental element of the olive press.",
+ "One who sells a bathhouse without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold with it the boards that are placed on the floor, nor has he sold the basins or the curtains [habilaniyot]. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, all these components are sold along with the bathhouse. Both in this case, where he executes the sale without specification, and in that case, where he adds the phrase that he is selling everything that is in the bathhouse, he has not sold the tanks of water, nor has he sold the storerooms for wood, as an explicit sales agreement is required for these matters.",
+ "One who sells a city without specifying what is included in the sale has sold with it the houses, the pits, the ditches and caves, the bathhouses and the dovecotes, and the olive presses and beit hashelaḥin, as will be explained in the Gemara, but he has not sold the movable property in the city. But when the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, even if there were cattle and Canaanite slaves in the city, all these entities are sold. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells a city has sold with it the santar, the meaning of which will be explained in the Gemara.",
+ "One who sells a field without specifying what is included in the sale has sold the stones in the field that are for its use, and the reeds in the vineyard that are for its use, and the produce that is still attached to the ground, and the cluster of reeds that occupy less than the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova], and the watch station that is not plastered with clay, and the young carob tree that has not yet been grafted, and the untrimmed sycamore that is still young.",
+ "But he has not sold along with the field the stones that are not designated for use in the field, and not the reeds in the vineyard that are not designated for its use, and not the produce that is already detached from the ground. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, all these components are sold along with the field. Both in this case, where he executes the sale without specification, and in that case, where he adds the phrase that he is selling everything that is in the field, he has not sold the cluster of reeds that occupy a beit rova or more, as they are considered a separate field, and he has not sold the watch station that is plastered with clay, and not the carob tree that has been grafted, and not the sycamore trunk. All of these entities are significant in their own right and have a status independent from that of the fields, and they are therefore not included in the sale of the field. In continuation of the previous mishna (68b) discussing one who sells a field, the mishna teaches that even if he says that he is selling it and everything that is in it, has sold neither the cistern, nor the winepress, nor the dovecote, whether it is abandoned or utilized, as these items are not part of the field itself. And the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain to reach whatever remains his. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that one who sells, sells generously; therefore, whatever is not explicitly excluded from the sale is assumed to be sold, and it is presumed that the seller did not retain for himself the right to the path that he requires to access his property. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase a path through the buyer’s domain, as it is assumed that since the seller withholds these items for himself, he also reserves a path to reach them. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller says to the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling the field apart from these things, i.e., the cistern and the winepress, he need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain. Since these items would have been excluded from the sale even if he had said nothing, it is assumed that he also meant to reserve for himself the right to access them. But if the seller kept the field but sold the cistern and winepress to another person, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain to reach what he has bought, since a seller sells generously. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain. In what case is this statement, that these items are excluded, said? It is said with regard to one who sells a field, but with regard to one who gives it away as a gift, it is assumed that he gives all of it, including everything found in the field. Similarly, with regard to brothers who divide their father’s estate among themselves, when they each acquire a field as part of their inheritance, they acquire all of it, including the items that would be excluded from a sale. So too, with regard to one who takes possession of the property of a convert, when he takes possession of a field, he takes possession of all of it. One who consecrates a field has consecrated all of it. Rabbi Shimon says: One who consecrates a field has not consecrated any of the items that are ordinarily excluded from a sale except for the grafted carob tree and the sycamore trunk."
+ ],
+ [
+ "One who sells a ship has sold along with it the toren, and the nes, and the ogin, and all of the equipment that is used for directing it. But he has not sold the slaves who serve as oarsmen, nor the packing bags that are used for transporting goods, nor the antikei on the ship. And when one said to the buyer: You are purchasing it, the ship, and all that it contains, all of these latter elements are also sold. One who sold a wagon [hakkaron] has not sold the mules that pull the wagon. Similarly, if one sold the mules, he has not sold the wagon. One who sold a yoke [hatzemed] has not sold the oxen, and one who sold the oxen has not sold the yoke. Rabbi Yehuda says: The sum of money indicates what one has sold. How so? If the buyer said to the seller: Sell me your yoke for two hundred dinars, since it is a known matter that a yoke is not sold for two hundred dinars he clearly intended to purchase the oxen as well. And the Rabbis say: The sum of money is not proof.",
+ "One who sells a donkey has not sold its vessels, i.e., its equipment, with it. Naḥum the Mede says: He has sold its vessels. Rabbi Yehuda says: There are times when the vessels are sold, and there are times when they are not sold. How so? If the donkey was before him and its vessels were on it, and the buyer said to him: Sell me this donkey of yours, its vessels are sold. If the buyer said to him: Is the donkey yours; I wish to purchase it, its vessels are not sold.",
+ "One who sells a female donkey has sold its foal along with it. But one who sold a cow has not sold its young. One who sold a dunghill has sold its manure. One who sold a cistern has sold its water. One who sold a beehive has sold the bees in it, and likewise one who sold a dovecote has sold the doves. One who buys the produce of a dovecote from another, i.e., the doves that will hatch over the course of the year in a dovecote, must leave [mafriaḥ] the first pair of doves from the brood for the seller. If one buys the produce of a beehive, i.e., all the bees produced from a beehive over the course of the year, the buyer takes three swarms and then the seller renders the bees impotent, so that they will stop producing offspring and instead produce only honey. One who buys honeycombs must leave two combs. If one buys olive trees for felling, he must leave two shoots for the seller.",
+ "With regard to one who buys two trees in the field of another, this one has not acquired any ground, but only the trees. Rabbi Meir says: He has acquired the ground under them. The mishna states a halakha in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna: If the trees grew, the owner of the field may not cut down their branches, despite the fact that their shade damages his field. And that which grows out of the trunk is his, i.e., it belongs to the owner of the tree, but that which grows out of the roots belongs to the owner of the ground. And if the trees died, their owner has no rights to the ground where the trees had stood. If one bought three trees, he has acquired the ground along with them. If they grew, the owner of the field may cut down their branches, as he sold a specific piece of land along with the trees, not his entire field. And that which grows out of the trunk and out of the roots is his, i.e., it belongs to the owner of the trees. And if the trees died, the owner of the trees still has possession of the ground, as it was sold along with the trees.",
+ "One who sells the head of a large domesticated animal has not sold along with it the forelegs, as each part is considered important in its own right. All the more so, if one sold the forelegs he has not sold the head. Similarly, if one sold the windpipe and the lungs he has not sold the liver, despite the fact that they are sometimes attached, and if he sold the liver he has not sold the windpipe and lungs. But in the case of small domesticated animals, if one sold the head he has sold the forelegs, although if one sold the legs he has not sold the head. Likewise, if one sold the windpipe and lungs he has sold the liver, but if he sold the liver he has not sold the windpipe and lungs.",
+ "There are four basic cases with regard to sellers and buyers. If the seller sold him wheat and said that the wheat was good, and it is found to be bad, the buyer, but not the seller, can renege on the sale. If the seller sold him what he thought was bad wheat and it is found to be good, the seller can renege on the sale but the buyer cannot. If he sold bad wheat and it is found to be bad, or good wheat and it is found to be good, neither one of them can renege on the sale, as the condition of the sale was met. If the seller sold reddish-brown wheat and it is found to be white, or white wheat and it is found to be reddish-brown, and similarly, if he sold olive wood and it is found to be wood of a sycamore, or he sold wood of a sycamore and it is found to be wood of an olive tree, or if the seller sold him wine and it is found to be vinegar, or vinegar and it is found to be wine, in all of these cases both the seller and the buyer can renege on the sale. Since the sale was for a different item than that which was delivered, the transaction can be nullified even if there was no mistake with regard to the price.",
+ "This mishna discusses several methods of acquiring movable property. With regard to one who sells produce to another, if the buyer pulled the produce but did not measure it, he has acquired the produce through the act of acquisition of pulling. If he measured the produce but did not pull it, he has not acquired it, and either the seller or the buyer can decide to rescind the sale. If the buyer is perspicacious and wants to acquire the produce without having to pull it, and he wishes to do so before the seller could change his mind and decide not to sell, he rents its place, where the produce is located, and his property immediately effects acquisition of the produce on his behalf. With regard to one who buys flax from another, because flax is usually carried around this purchaser has not acquired it until he carries it from place to place and acquires it by means of the act of acquisition of lifting. Pulling the flax is ineffective. And if it was attached to the ground, and he detached any amount, he has acquired it, as the Gemara will explain.",
+ "With regard to one who sells food or drink that has an established price, such as wine and oil, to another, and the price rises or falls and the buyer or the seller wishes to renege on the sale, if the price changed before the measuring vessel is filled, the merchandise still belongs to the seller and he can cancel the sale. Once the measuring vessel is filled the merchandise belongs to the buyer, and the seller can no longer cancel the sale. And if there was a middleman [sarsur] between them and the barrel belonging to the middleman, being used to measure the merchandise, broke during the transaction and the merchandise is ruined, it broke for the middleman, i.e., he is responsible for the ruined merchandise. The mishna teaches an additional halakha with regard to sales: And anyone who sells wine, oil, or similar liquids is obligated, after he transfers the liquid into the buyer’s vessel, to drip for him three extra drops from the measure. After he drips those three drops, if he turned the barrel on its side and drained out the last bits of liquid that it contained, this belongs to the seller and he is not required to give these last drops to the buyer. And a storekeeper is not obligated to drip three drops, because he is too busy to do this constantly. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the sale occurs on Shabbat eve as nightfall arrives, one is exempt from dripping these three drops, as there is a need to complete the transaction before Shabbat begins.",
+ "With regard to one who sends his son to a storekeeper with a pundeyon, a coin worth two issar, in his hand, and the storekeeper measured oil for him for one issar and gave him the second issar as change, and the son broke the jug and lost the issar, the storekeeper must compensate the father, as he gave the jug and coin to one who is not halakhically competent. Rabbi Yehuda exempts him from liability, as he holds that the father sent his son in order to do this, i.e., to bring back the jug and coin. And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to a case when the jug is in the hand of the child and the storekeeper measured the oil into it that the storekeeper is exempt if the child breaks the jug.",
+ "A wholesaler [hassiton] must clean his measuring vessels, which are used for measuring liquids such as oil and wine, once every thirty days, because the residue of the liquids sticks to the measure and reduces its capacity. And a homeowner who sells his goods must clean his measuring vessels only once every twelve months. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The matters are reversed. In the case of one who is constantly using his vessels for selling merchandise the residue does not adhere to the measuring vessel, and therefore a wholesaler must clean his measures only once a year. But in the case of a homeowner, who does not sell as often, the residue adheres to the measuring vessel; therefore, he must clean them every thirty days. A storekeeper, who constantly sells merchandise in small quantities, cleans his measuring vessels twice a week and cleans his weights once a week; and he cleans the pans of his scales after each and every weighing, to ensure that no merchandise has adhered to the pans, thereby increasing their weight. ",
+ "Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement, that it is necessary to clean a measuring vessel, said? With regard to moist items, which are likely to adhere to the measuring vessels. But with regard to dry goods, which do not adhere to the measuring vessels, one does not need to clean his measuring vessels. And before adding the weights and merchandise the seller is obligated to let the pans of the scale that will hold the merchandise tilt an extra handbreadth for the buyer by adding a weight to that side. If the seller weighed for him exactly, i.e., with the scales equally balanced initially, instead of allowing the scales to tilt an extra handbreadth, he must give the buyer additional amounts [geirumin], an additional one-tenth in the case of liquids sold by weight, and an additional one-twentieth in the case of dry goods. The mishna continues to discuss the correct method of weighing: In a place where they were accustomed to measure merchandise in several stages with a small measuring vessel, one may not measure all the items at once with a single large measuring vessel. In a place where they measure with one large measuring vessel, one may not measure with several small measuring vessels. In a place where the custom is to level the top of the measuring vessel to remove substances heaped above its edges, one may not heap it, and where the custom is to heap it, one may not level it."
+ ],
+ [
+ "With regard to one who sells produce to another that is sometimes purchased for consumption and sometimes for planting, and the buyer planted it and it did not sprout, and even if he had sold flaxseeds, which are only occasionally eaten, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for them, i.e., he is not required to compensate the buyer. Since the buyer did not specify that he purchased the produce in order to plant it, the seller can claim that he assumed the buyer intended to eat it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he had sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, then the seller bears financial responsibility for them, as they were certainly purchased for planting.",
+ "When selling a significant quantity of produce or a number of items, there is a possibility that there will be a certain proportion of impurities in it or that some of the product will be of substandard quality. The mishna delineates what proportion is considered acceptable, for which a buyer may not demand compensation. With regard to one who sells produce, i.e., grain, to another, this buyer accepts upon himself that up to a quarter-kav of impurities may be present in each se’a of produce purchased. When purchasing figs, he accepts upon himself that up to ten infested figs may be present in each hundred figs purchased. When purchasing a cellar containing barrels of wine, he accepts upon himself that up to ten barrels of souring wine may be present in each hundred barrels purchased. When purchasing jugs of wine in the Sharon region, he accepts upon himself that up to ten inferior-quality jugs [pitasot] of wine may be present in each hundred jugs purchased.",
+ "If one sells wine to another and then it sours, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for its loss. But if it is known of this seller that his wine always sours, then this sale is a mistaken transaction, i.e., one based upon false assumptions, as the buyer intended to purchase wine that would maintain its quality; therefore, the seller must reimburse the buyer. And if the seller said to the buyer: It is wine that is spiced, which is preserved and of lasting quality, that I am selling to you, then he bears financial responsibility to provide him with wine that will keep until the festival of Shavuot. And if the seller said: I am selling you old wine, he is responsible to provide wine from the previous year. And if he said: I am selling you aged wine, he is responsible to provide wine that is from three years earlier.",
+ "With regard to one who sells a plot of land to another, with the buyer intending to build a bridal house for his son or a widowhood home for his daughter on that plot, and similarly, with regard to a contractor who receives a plot of land from another under a commission to build for the owner on that land a bridal house for his son, or a widowhood home for his daughter, the terms of the transaction are a matter of dispute. The mishna presents the dispute: In the latter case, the contractor must build a building that is at least four cubits by six cubits in size, and similarly, in the case of the sale, the seller must provide a plot of land that can accommodate a building of that size; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says: A structure of this size is a cowshed, and a bridal house or a widowhood home is larger than that. One who wants to construct a cowshed builds a structure at least four cubits by six cubits in size. The mishna delineates the standard dimensions for various other structures. A small house is six by eight cubits. A large house is eight by ten cubits. A banquet hall [teraklin] is ten by ten cubits. The standard height for each of these structures is equal to the sum of half its length and half its width. There is a proof of the matter; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The proportions are like the building of the Sanctuary; it was forty cubits wide and twenty cubits long and its height was thirty cubits, which is the sum of half the width and half the length.",
+ "One who has ownership of a cistern located beyond the house of another, i.e., the cistern can be accessed only by entering the property of the other, and also has access rights to that cistern, may enter the house to access his cistern only at a time when it is usual for people to enter, and may leave only at a time when it is usual for people to leave. And in addition, he may not bring his animal into the house and water it from his cistern; rather, he must fill a pail with water from the cistern and water his animal outside. And this one, the owner of the cistern, constructs for himself a lock on the entrance to the cistern to prevent the homeowner from drawing water from it, and that one, the homeowner, constructs for himself a lock.",
+ "One who has ownership of a garden located beyond the garden of another, and also has access rights to it, may enter his garden only at a time when it is usual for people to enter, and may leave only at a time when it is usual for people to leave. Furthermore, he may not bring merchants into his garden, and he may not enter the garden solely in order to use it as a passageway, to enter from it into another field. And the owner of the outer garden may sow the path leading to the inner garden. If the court gave him an access path from the side of the outer garden, with the agreement of both of them, he may enter at any time he wants, and leave at any time he wants, and may bring merchants into the inner garden. But he may still not enter the garden solely in order to enter from it into another field. In such a case, neither this one, the owner of the inner garden, nor that one, the owner of the outer garden, is permitted to plant that side path.",
+ "In the case of one who had a public thoroughfare passing through his field, and he appropriated it and instead gave the public an alternative thoroughfare on the side of his property, the halakha is that the thoroughfare that he gave them, he gave them, and they may use it. But the original thoroughfare that he took for himself has not reached him, i.e., he cannot appropriate it for his personal use. The standard width of a private path is four cubits. If a field owner sells the right to pass through his field to an individual, without specifying the width of the path, he must provide him with a path four cubits wide. The standard width of a public thoroughfare is sixteen cubits. The width of a king’s thoroughfare has no maximum measure, as the king may appropriate whatever width thoroughfare he wishes. The width of the path for the burial procession to a grave has no maximum measure. With regard to the practice of standing and comforting the mourners following a funeral, the judges of Tzippori said that the standard requisite size is the area required for sowing four kav of seed.",
+ "There is the case of one who sells a plot of land to another in order for him to construct for himself an underground catacomb, and similarly the case of a contractor who receives a plot of land from another under a commission to construct for him a catacomb. If the size of the catacomb was not specified, then he should make the inside of each burial chamber four cubits wide by six cubits long and open up into the chamber, by digging into its walls, eight burial niches [kukhin] in which the coffins will rest. Three niches should be opened up from the wall here, along the length of the chamber, and three from there, along the other side, and two niches from the wall facing the entrance. And these niches should be formed so that their length is four cubits and their height is seven handbreadths, and their width is six handbreadths. Rabbi Shimon says: He should construct the inside of each burial chamber six cubits wide by eight cubits long and open up into the chamber, by digging into its walls, thirteen burial niches. Four niches should be opened up from the wall here, along the length of the chamber, and four from there, along the other side, and three niches from the wall facing the entrance, and one from the right of the entrance and another one from the left. The mishna describes the general structure of the catacomb: And he must fashion a courtyard at the entrance of the burial chamber that should be six cubits by six cubits, which is equal to the combined length of the bier of the deceased and those who bury him, to ensure adequate room for the burial to take place. And he should open up two burial chambers into the courtyard, one from here and one from there, i.e., on opposite sides of the courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: He should open up four burial chambers, one on each of the courtyard’s four sides. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is dependent on the nature of the bedrock. If the bedrock is hard and strong it will be able to accommodate more niches, which will be more closely packed together, with less bedrock between them. If the bedrock is softer, fewer and more sparsely spaced niches should be formed."
+ ],
+ [
+ "If one says to another: I am selling you a plot of earth of the size required for sowing one kor of seed [beit kor], and there on that plot there were crevices [neka’im] ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high, they are not measured together with the rest of the field. Rather, the buyer must be provided with land measuring a beit kor exclusive of those crevices or rocks. If the crevices or rocks measured less than ten handbreadths, they are measured together with the rest of the field. But if the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you a plot of earth that is about the size of a beit kor, then even if there on that plot there were crevices deeper than ten handbreadths or rocks higher than ten handbreadths, they are measured together with the rest of the field.",
+ "If one says to another: I am selling you a plot of earth the size of a beit kor, measured precisely with a rope, and he gave him even the slightest amount less than what was stipulated, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price of the field and return money to the buyer. If he gave him even the slightest amount more than what was stipulated, the buyer must return the difference to the seller. And if the seller said to the buyer that he is selling him a beit kor of land more or less, then even if he gave him a quarter-kav per se’a less than what was stipulated, or he gave him a quarter-kav per se’a more that what was stipulated, i.e., he gave him one twenty-fourth more or less than what was required, it is his. The sale is valid, since the seller told the buyer in advance that he was not committing himself to precise measurements. If the difference is greater than that amount, he must make a calculation, and the party that suffered a loss must be compensated. If the buyer received too much land, so that he must now compensate the seller, what does he return to him? He returns money, i.e., he pays the seller for the surplus land. And if the seller so wishes, the buyer returns the surplus land to him. Why then did the Sages say that he returns money to him? They said this in order to enhance the power of the seller, and enable him to demand payment for the surplus land, rather than accept its return. As, if the surplus in the field was an area required for sowing nine kav of seed, and in a garden an area required for sowing a half-kav of seed, or, according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, an area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed (see 11a), the buyer must return the land itself to the seller, and the seller cannot demand payment in money. And if the surplus is greater than a quarter-kav per se’a, it is not only the quarter-kav that he returns; rather, he returns all of the surplus. Since he is already required to make a refund, the refund must be made in the precise amount.",
+ "If the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you a plot of land of a certain size measured precisely with a rope more or less, thereby attaching to the sale two contradictory stipulations; in this case, the words: More or less, nullify the words: Measured precisely with a rope. Accordingly, if the surplus did not exceed a quarter-kav per se’a, the sale is valid as is. Similarly, if the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you a plot of land of a certain size more or less measured precisely with a rope, the words: Measured precisely with a rope, nullify the words: More or less, since the principle is that in all cases, one should attend to the final expression; this is the statement of ben Nanas. If one sells a field to another, telling him that he is selling him a field measuring a beit kor, with its particular demarcations and borders that the seller specifies for the buyer, the field’s measurement is not treated in as exacting a manner as in a standard sale. Therefore, if it later turns out that the field was not precisely a beit kor, but the difference is still less than one-sixth, the field is the buyer’s, and the sale is valid as is. But if the difference is greater, e.g., one-quarter or one-fifth, then, until it is calculated at one-sixth, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price and return money to the buyer.",
+ "If one says to another: I am selling you half a field, without specifying which half he is selling, an assessment is made of the field, which is then divided between them, and the buyer takes half of the seller’s field. If the seller says: I am selling you the half that is on the southern side of the field, an assessment is made of the northern and the southern sides of the field, which is then divided between them, and he takes the half on the southern side. And he accepts upon himself to provide the space for the fence between the two halves of the field out of his own property. He also accepts to provide out of his own property the space for the larger ditch and the smaller ditch, which are meant to keep animals out of the field. And how wide is the larger ditch? Six handbreadths. And how wide is the smaller ditch? Three handbreadths."
+ ],
+ [
+ "There are family members who both inherit from and bequeath to each other upon their respective deaths; and there are those who inherit from certain relatives but do not bequeath to them; and there are those who bequeath to certain relatives but do not inherit from them; and there are those who, despite being relatives, do not inherit from nor bequeath to one another. The mishna lists those referred to above. And these both inherit and bequeath: A father with regard to his sons, and sons with regard to their father, and paternal brothers; all inherit from one another and bequeath to each other. A man with regard to his mother, and a man with regard to his wife, and sons of sisters, i.e., nephews born to the sisters of the deceased, all inherit from their respective relatives but do not bequeath to them. A woman with regard to her sons, and a woman with regard to her husband, and maternal uncles, all bequeath to their respective relatives but do not inherit from them. And maternal brothers, despite being blood relatives, do not inherit from each other nor do they bequeath to one another, as they are not considered relatives for the purpose of inheritance.",
+ "The order of precedence with regard to inheritances is this: The verse states: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). This teaches that a son precedes a daughter. Additionally, all descendants of a son precede a daughter. A daughter precedes the brothers of the deceased. Additionally, the descendants of a daughter precede the brothers of the deceased. Brothers of the deceased precede the uncles of the deceased. Additionally, the descendants of the brothers precede the uncles. This is the principle: Concerning anyone who precedes another with regard to inheritance, his descendants precede the other as well, and a father who inherits precedes all of his descendants.",
+ "Zelophehad’s daughters took three portions of land in the inheritance of Eretz Yisrael: Their father’s portion that he received because he was among those who left Egypt; and his portion that he received with his brothers in the property of Hepher, their father; and an additional portion that he received from Hepher because he was a firstborn, and a firstborn takes two portions of inheritance from his father.",
+ "Both the son and the daughter of the deceased are included in the halakhot of inheritance. But the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother. And another difference is that the daughters are sustained from the property of the father after he dies, as it is a mandatory condition of their mother’s marriage contract that they are to be sustained even before the estate is disbursed to the children, but the daughters are not sustained from the property of the mother, which is all inherited by the sons.",
+ "In a case of one who says: So-and-so, my firstborn son, will not take a double portion of my estate; or one who says: So-and-so, my son, will not inherit my estate among his brothers, he has said nothing, as he has stipulated counter to that which is written in the Torah. With regard to one on his deathbed who apportions his property orally, granting it to his sons as a gift, and he increased the portion given to one of his sons and reduced the portion given to one son, or equated the portion of the firstborn to the portions of the other sons, his statement stands. But if he said that they will receive the property not as a gift but as inheritance, he has said nothing. If he wrote in his will, whether at the beginning, or in the middle, or at the end, that he is granting them the property as a gift, his statement stands. In a case of one who says: So-and-so will inherit from me, in a case where there is a daughter, or: My daughter will inherit from me, in a case where there is a son, he has said nothing, as he has stipulated counter to that which is written in the Torah concerning the order of inheritance. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: If he said this about one fit to inherit from him, his statement stands, but if it was about one for whom it was not fit to inherit from him, his statement does not stand. With regard to one who wrote a document granting his property to others as a gift and left his sons with nothing, what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect; but the Sages are displeased with him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he did so because his sons were not acting properly, he is remembered positively.",
+ "One who says: This is my son, is deemed credible. One who says: This is my brother, is not deemed credible with regard to his other brothers’ obligation to share the inheritance with the subject of his statement. When one claims that this man is his brother, this claim is accepted with regard to the speaker’s own portion, and the man in question takes a share of their father’s inheritance with him, i.e., from his portion. If the man in question dies, the property he received from the father’s inheritance shall return to its place, i.e., to the possession of the brother who testified on his behalf, from whose portion he received a share. If property came into the man in question’s possession from somewhere else, other than from the father, and the man in question died, all of the brothers of the one who testified shall inherit with the one who testified, as according to his claim they too are the heirs of the deceased. With regard to one who died, and a will written by a person on his deathbed [dayetikei] is found bound to his thigh, which clearly indicates that it was written by him and was not forged, this is nothing. The will is not valid, as he did not give it to anyone, and he may have reconsidered. If he transferred ownership of the will to the designated recipient through another person, whether one of the heirs or whether not one of the heirs, his statement stands.",
+ "A healthy person who writes a document granting his property to his sons in his lifetime, but wishes to continue to derive benefit from it until his death, must write: I give the property from today and after my death. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He need not write: From today and after my death; it is sufficient for him to write that the transfer will take effect after he dies. If one writes a document granting his property to his son from today and after his death, the father cannot sell the property because it is written as granted to the son, and the son cannot sell it because it is still in the possession of the father with regard to using the property and consuming its produce. If the father sold the property, it is sold to the purchaser inasmuch as he may use it and consume its produce until the father dies, at which point it belongs to the son. If the son sold it during his father’s lifetime, the purchaser has no right to use it until the father dies. In continuation of the case discussed in the previous mishna of a father who wrote a document granting his property to his son but reserved the rights to the produce during his lifetime, the mishna states that the father may detach produce from the land and feed the produce to whomever he wishes, and what he left detached at the time of his death belongs to all the father’s heirs, not only to this son. If a person died and left adult and minor sons, the adults are not provided for by using funds of the minors, and the minors are not sustained, i.e., they do not receive food, by using funds of the adults. Rather, they receive a share of the inheritance equally, and each son sees to his needs from his own share. If the adults married, the minors marry, as the Gemara will explain. But if the minors say: We are marrying in the same manner that you adults married during our father’s lifetime, the court does not listen to them. Rather, whatever their father gave the adults in his lifetime he gave them, and the minors do not have the right to receive more than their share of the inheritance. ",
+ "Similarly, if the father left adult and minor daughters but no sons, in which case his daughters inherit the estate, the adults are not provided for by using funds of the minors, and the minors are not sustained by using funds of the adults. Rather, they receive a share of the inheritance equally, and each daughter sees to her needs from her share. If the adult daughters married, the minor daughters marry, as the Gemara will explain. But if the minors say: We are marrying in the same manner that you adults married during our father’s lifetime, the court does not listen to them. This following halakha is a stringency with regard to daughters’ inheritance vis-à-vis sons’ inheritance: The halakha is that the daughters are sustained by using funds of the sons, as stipulated in their mother’s marriage contract, but they are not sustained by using funds of the other daughters."
+ ],
+ [
+ "In the case of one who died and left behind both sons and daughters, when the estate is large the sons inherit the estate and the daughters are provided with sustenance from it according to the stipulations of the deceased’s marriage contract with their mother. With regard to a small estate, which is insufficient to provide for both the sons and the daughters, the daughters are provided with sustenance. And if the sons, who receive in this case neither inheritance nor sustenance, have no other means with which to support themselves, they go and request charity at the doors. Admon says, rhetorically: I lost out just because I am male? Rather, he holds that the sons also receive sustenance. Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon.",
+ "With regard to one who left behind sons and daughters and a tumtum, whose halakhic status as male or female is indeterminate, the halakha is as follows: When the estate is large the males direct the tumtum to the females and exclude him from the inheritance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is female. When the estate is small, the females direct the tumtum to the males and exclude him from receiving sustenance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is male. With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive a gift of one hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a male, the offspring receives one hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive a gift of two hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a female, the offspring receives two hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive a gift of one hundred dinars and if she gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive a gift of two hundred dinars, and in fact she gave birth to both a male and a female, the male offspring receives one hundred dinars and the female offspring receives two hundred dinars. If she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum does not receive anything. If he said: Whatever offspring my wife gives birth to shall receive a gift of a certain sum, and she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum receives it. And if there is no heir other than the tumtum, the tumtum inherits all of the estate.",
+ "In the case of one who died and left behind adult and minor sons, if the adult sons enhanced the property, they enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is distributed among all the heirs. If the adult sons said from the outset: See that which our father left behind; we are going to engage in business with our share of the property and profit from it, then they enhanced the property for themselves. And similarly, with regard to a wife who enhanced the property of her deceased husband, she enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is divided between her and the heirs. If she said: See that which my husband left me; I am going to engage in business with my share and profit from it, then she enhanced the property for herself.",
+ "With regard to brothers who were also partners, and it occurred that one of them was summoned to public service, which is assessed per family, he was summoned from the middle, i.e., the profits or expenses of his service are divided among them. If one of the brothers became sick and sought treatment, the cost of the treatment is paid from his own resources. It was common practice for friends of a groom to give him gifts in order to help cover the expenses of the wedding feast. These gifts are known as gifts of groomsmen, and would be reciprocated in turn. While the groom and the groomsman were at times the recipient and the giver of the gifts, respectively, the gifts were at times provided by the father of the groomsman and received by the father of the groom. In the case of brothers, some of whom brought gifts of groomsmen in their father’s lifetime, which were provided by their father, when the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated after the father’s death, when one of the brothers gets married, they are reciprocated to the middle, i.e., the gift is divided among the brothers. This is because gifts of groomsmen are a legal debt owed to the father, collectible in court. But with regard to one who sends his friend jugs of wine or jugs of oil, a reciprocal gift is not collectible in court, because they are considered acts of kindness.",
+ "With regard to one who sends presents [sivlonot] to his father-in-law’s house following his betrothal, even if he sent there the sum of ten thousand dinars and subsequently ate there a groom’s feast even worth the value of a single dinar, if for any reason the marriage is not effected, the presents are not collected in return by the formerly betrothed man. If he did not eat a groom’s feast there, the presents are collected, as they were not an unconditional gift. If he sent many presents with the stipulation that they return with her to her husband’s house, i.e., to his own house, after the wedding, these are collected if the marriage is not effected. If he sent a few presents for her to use while in her father’s house, they are not collected.",
+ "With regard to a person on his death-bed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, and he reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands even if he subsequently recovers. If he did not reserve for himself any amount of land, and he recovered, his gift does not stand, as the gift was conditional upon his death, since is it evident that he did not intend to leave himself without means of support. If one did not write in the deed that he was on his deathbed, and he then recovered and wished to retract the gift, and he says: I was on my deathbed, and since I recovered, I can retract the gift, but the recipients say: You were healthy, and the gift cannot be retracted, the giver must bring proof that he was on his deathbed in order to retract the gift. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and since the property is in the possession of the giver, the recipients must bring proof that they have the right to receive it.",
+ "With regard to one who divides his property between various recipients by means of verbal instruction, Rabbi Elazar says: Both in the case of one who is healthy and in the case of one who is dangerously ill, the halakha is as follows: Property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, is acquired by means of money, by a deed of transfer, or by taking possession of it. And that which does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired only by pulling. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Elazar: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and who said: My brooch shall be given to my daughter, and it is valued at twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages upheld her statement. This indicates that a person on his deathbed can gift property without an act of acquisition. Rabbi Elazar said to them: That case was different; the sons of Rokhel should be buried by their mother, i.e., he cursed them. It is not possible to bring a proof from this incident, as these sons were wicked people. Consequently, when ruling in this matter the Sages did not act in accordance with the halakha, but allowed the mother of the sons of Rokhel to give this valuable piece of jewelry to their sister without an act of acquisition having been performed. Rabbi Eliezer says: On Shabbat, the verbal statement of a person on his deathbed stands, as he cannot write, and the Sages instituted that he can effect the transaction verbally lest the inability to do so exacerbate his condition. But a verbal instruction does not stand if stated on a weekday. Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to Shabbat, the Sages stated that his verbal instruction is sufficient, even though writing is prohibited. One can infer a fortiori that the same applies with regard to a weekday, when writing is permitted. Similarly, one can acquire property on behalf of a minor, but one cannot acquire property on behalf of an adult, since he can perform the act of acquisition himself; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The Sages stated this halakha with regard to a minor, and one may infer a fortiori that this also applies with regard to an adult, who is able to perform the act of acquisition himself.",
+ "A house collapsed on a son and upon his father, or upon a certain person and upon those from whom he stands to inherit, and it is unknown who died first. If the son bore the responsibility to pay the marriage contract of his wife and to pay a creditor, and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and the father’s heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died, and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, and the creditors say: The father died first and afterward the son died, resulting in the son’s inheriting his father’s property, enabling the creditors to collect payment from the property even after the son’s death, there is a dispute with regard to how to rule. Since it cannot be determined who died first, Beit Shammai say: They divide the property between them so that the father’s heirs receive half of his property and the son’s creditors receive the other half. And Beit Hillel say: The property retains its previous ownership status. Since the last known owner of the property was the father, the property is given to the father’s heirs.",
+ "If the house collapsed upon a husband and upon his wife, and it is unknown who died first, if the wife did not have any children from her husband, then the following claims arise: The husband’s heirs say: The wife died first and was inherited by her husband, and afterward the husband died, and therefore the husband’s heirs inherit both his and her property. The wife’s heirs say: The husband died first and afterward the wife died, and her heirs inherit the property that she brought with her to the marriage and the payment of her marriage contract. Beit Shammai say: They divide the property under dispute between them. And Beit Hillel say: The guaranteed property that the wife brought with her to the marriage retains its previous ownership status. The sum of the marriage contract remains in the possession of the husband’s heirs, since the marriage contract is collected from the husband’s property. Property that is brought into and taken out of the marriage with her, i.e., usufruct property that remains in the wife’s possession during her marriage, remains in the possession of the heirs of the woman’s father.",
+ "If the house collapsed on a son and upon his mother, and it is unknown who died first, the following claims arise: The mother’s paternal family claims that the son died first, and therefore they inherit from the mother, and the son’s heirs claim that the mother died first and her son inherited from her, and therefore they inherit from the son. In this case, both these Sages and those Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede that they divide the property between them. Rabbi Akiva said: In this case I concede that the property retains its previous ownership status. Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: We are already troubled by those cases where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are in disagreement. But do you come to bring upon us a disagreement with regard to the case where they agree?"
+ ],
+ [
+ "In an ordinary document, its witnesses are to sign inside it, i.e., on the written side of the paper. In a folded and tied document, its witnesses are to sign on the back of it. With regard to an ordinary document whose witnesses wrote their signatures on the back of it, and a tied document whose witnesses wrote their signatures inside of it, both of these are not valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: A tied document whose witnesses wrote their signatures inside of it is valid, because one can transform it into an ordinary document by untying it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is in accordance with regional custom.",
+ "An ordinary document is rendered valid by its having at least two witnesses, and a tied document is rendered valid by its having at least three witnesses. With regard to an ordinary document in which a single witness wrote his signature, and a tied document in which only two witnesses wrote their signatures, they are both not valid. If it is written in a document that someone owes: One hundred dinars, which are twenty sela, which is internally inconsistent since there are twenty-five sela in a hundred dinars, the holder of the document has the right to claim only twenty sela, the lower of the two amounts. If it is written that he owes: One hundred dinars, which are thirty sela, the holder of the document has the right to claim only one hundred dinars, again the lower of the two amounts. If it is written that someone owes: Silver dinars that are, and the remainder of the text, where the number of dinars should be specified, was erased, the amount must be no less than two dinars, the lowest amount to which the plural word dinars can be referring. That is what the creditor can claim. Similarly, if it is written: Silver sela that are, and the remainder of the text was erased, the amount must be no less than two sela. And if it is written: Darics that are, and the remainder of the text was erased, the amount must be no less than two darics. If it is written in the document above, in an earlier place in the document, that someone owes one hundred dinars, and below, toward the end of the document, it is written that the amount owed is two hundred dinars, or if above it is written two hundred dinars and below one hundred dinars, everything follows the bottom amount. If so, why does one write the information in the upper part of the document at all? It is a safety measure, so that if one letter is erased from the lower part of the document, thereby rendering it illegible, the information can be learned from the upper part of the document.",
+ "A scribe may write a bill of divorce for a man who requests one, even if his wife is not with him to give her consent when he presents his request, as there is no possibility that he will misuse the document. And a scribe may write a receipt for a woman upon her request, attesting to the payment of her marriage contract, even if her husband is not with her to give his consent. This is true provided that the scribe recognizes the parties requesting the document, to prevent misrepresentation. And for both documents, the husband gives the scribe his wages. A scribe may write a promissory note for a debtor who requests one, even if the creditor is not with him when he requests the document, but a scribe may not write a promissory note for a creditor who requests it unless the debtor is with him and consents. And it is the debtor who gives the scribe his wages. A scribe may write a bill of sale for a seller of a field who requests one even if the purchaser is not with him when he presents his request, but a scribe may not write a bill of sale for a purchaser who requests it unless the seller is with him and consents. And it is the purchaser who gives the scribe his wages. ",
+ "A scribe may not write documents of betrothal and documents of marriage except with the consent of both parties, the groom and the bride. And it is the groom who gives the scribe his wages. A scribe may not write contracts for sharecroppers and contractors except with the consent of both parties, i.e., the sharecropper or contractor and the one who hires him. And it is the sharecropper or contractor who gives the scribe his wages. A scribe may not write documents testifying to arbitration agreements or any other court enactment except with the consent of both parties to the litigation. And both parties give the scribe his wages. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The scribe writes two documents for the two parties, one for this one by himself, and one for that one by himself.",
+ "In the case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt and with the agreement of the creditor deposited the promissory note with a third party serving as a trustee to ensure that the creditor would not collect the full amount, and the debtor said to the trustee: If I have not given you the balance from now until such and such a day, give the creditor his promissory note, thereby enabling him to collect the full amount stated on the note, if the stipulated time arrived and the debtor did not give the balance to the trustee, Rabbi Yosei says: The trustee should give the promissory note to the creditor, in accordance with the debtor’s stipulation. Rabbi Yehuda says: The trustee should not give it, as the stipulation is void.",
+ "In the case of a creditor whose promissory note has become erased, he should produce witnesses who remember the details of the document to testify about it. And they come before the court, and they ratify his promissory note for him, stating: The promissory note of so-and-so was erased, and it stated that a loan for such and such an amount took place on such and such a date, and so-and-so and so-and-so were its witnesses. The ratification document is signed, and it may be used as a replacement for the erased document. In the case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt, Rabbi Yehuda says: The creditor should exchange the promissory note for a new one stating the current balance and tear up the first promissory note. Rabbi Yosei says: The creditor may keep the original promissory note, and he should write a receipt for the payment he has received and give it to the debtor as proof of his partial payment of the sum recorded in the old note. Rabbi Yehuda said with regard to this arrangement: It is found that this debtor must now guard his receipt against being destroyed by mice, as if he no longer has the receipt, he will have to pay the entire sum recorded in the promissory note. Rabbi Yosei said to him: This situation is fitting for him; it is better that this procedure be followed, and the strength of the claim of this creditor not be weakened.",
+ "In a case where there are two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bathhouse or an olive press as an inheritance, if the father had built these facilities for profit, i.e., to charge others for using them, the profit that accrues after the father’s death is shared equally by the two brothers. If the father had built them for himself and for the members of his household to use, the poor brother, who has little use for these amenities, cannot force the rich brother to convert the facilities to commercial use; rather, the rich brother can say to the poor brother: Go take servants for yourself, and they will bathe in the bathhouse. Or he can say: Go take olives for yourself, and come and make them into oil in the olive press. If there are two people who were living in one city, one named Yosef ben Shimon and the other also named Yosef ben Shimon, one cannot present a promissory note against the other, as the purported debtor can claim: On the contrary, it is you who owed me money; you repaid me and I returned this note to you upon payment. Nor can another, third person, present a promissory note against either of them, as each one can claim: It is not I but the other Yosef ben Shimon who owes you money. If a document is found among one’s documents stating: The promissory note against Yosef ben Shimon is repaid, and both men named Yosef ben Shimon owed this man money, the promissory notes of both of them are considered repaid, as it cannot be determined which debt was repaid and which is outstanding. What should two people with the same name in a single city do in order to conduct their business? They should triple their names by writing three generations: Yosef ben Shimon ben so-and-so. And if they have identical triple names, i.e., not only their fathers but their grandfathers had identical names, they should write an indication as to which one is referred to, such as: The short Yosef ben Shimon or the dark Yosef ben Shimon. And if they have identical indications, they should write: Yosef ben Shimon the priest, if one of them is a priest. In the case of one who says to his son before dying: One promissory note among the promissory notes in my possession is repaid, but I do not know which one, the promissory notes of all of those who owe him money are considered repaid, i.e., they are not valid for collection, as it cannot be determined which debt was repaid and which are outstanding. If there were found among his papers two promissory notes owed by one person, the one for the greater amount is considered repaid, and the one for the smaller amount is not considered repaid and can be collected; the debtor is favored in the case of an uncertainty. One who lends money to another with the assurance of a guarantor cannot collect the debt from the guarantor. But if the creditor said to the debtor: I am lending the money on the condition that I will collect the debt from whomever I wish, i.e., either the debtor or the guarantor, he can collect the debt from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the debtor has property of his own, then whether in this case, where the creditor stipulated this condition, or that case, where he did not, he cannot collect the debt from the guarantor. And so Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: If there is a guarantor for a woman for her marriage contract, from whom the woman can collect payment of her marriage contract instead of collecting it from the husband, and her husband was divorcing her, the husband must take a vow prohibiting himself from deriving any benefit from her, so that he can never remarry her. This precaution is taken lest the couple collude [kenunya] to divorce in order to collect payment of the marriage contract from this guarantor’s property, and then the husband will remarry his wife.",
+ "One who lends money to another by means of a promissory note can collect the debt from liened property that had been sold to others by the debtor after the loan was granted. One who lends money by means of witnesses, without recording the loan in a promissory note, can collect the debt only from unsold property. If one presents to a debtor a document in the handwriting of the debtor stating that he owes money to him, but without witnesses signed on the document, the creditor can collect only from unsold property. In the case of a guarantor whose commitment emerged after the signing of the promissory note, the creditor can collect the sum only from unsold property of the guarantor. The mishna relates: An incident occurred where such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael, and he said: The creditor can collect the sum from unsold property of the guarantor, but not from liened property that he has sold to others. Ben Nannas said to Rabbi Yishmael: The creditor cannot collect the sum from the guarantor at all, not from liened property that has been sold, nor from unsold property. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Why not? Ben Nannas said to him: If one was strangling someone in the marketplace, demanding repayment of a loan, and another person found him doing so and said to the attacker: Leave him alone and I will give you the money he owes, the person who intervened is exempt from paying, as the creditor did not loan the money in the first place based on his trust of the one who intervened. Rather, who is a guarantor who is obligated to repay the loan he has guaranteed? One who tells the creditor before the loan takes place: Lend money to him, and I will give you the repayment, as in that case the creditor did loan the money based on his trust of the guarantor. And Rabbi Yishmael thereupon said: One who wants to become wise should engage in the study of monetary law, as there is no greater discipline in the Torah, and it is like a flowing spring. And, he added, one who wants to engage in the study of monetary law should attend to, i.e., become a disciple of, Shimon ben Nannas."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/merged.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..801416353473cb1fb60947ace7ca0d003ec14710
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Batra/English/merged.json
@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+{
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Batra",
+ "language": "en",
+ "versionTitle": "merged",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Bava_Batra",
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Partners who wished to make a partition [meḥitza] in a jointly owned courtyard build the wall for the partition in the middle of the courtyard. What is this wall fashioned from? In a place where it is customary to build such a wall with non-chiseled stone [gevil], or chiseled stone [gazit], or small bricks [kefisin], or large bricks [leveinim], they must build the wall with that material. Everything is in accordance with the regional custom. If they build the wall with non-chiseled stone, this partner provides three handbreadths of his portion of the courtyard and that partner provides three handbreadths, since the thickness of such a wall is six handbreadths. If they build the wall with chiseled stone, this partner provides two and a half handbreadths and that partner provides two and a half handbreadths, since such a wall is five handbreadths thick. If they build the wall with small bricks, this one provides two handbreadths and that one provides two handbreadths, since the thickness of such a wall is four handbreadths. If they build with large bricks, this one provides one and a half handbreadths and that one provides one and a half handbreadths, since the thickness of such a wall is three handbreadths. Therefore, if the wall later falls, the assumption is that the space where the wall stood and the stones belong to both of them, to be divided equally.",
+ "And similarly with regard to a garden, in a place where it is customary to build a partition in the middle of a garden jointly owned by two people, and one of them wishes to build such a partition, the court obligates his neighbor to join in building the partition. But with regard to an expanse of fields [babbika], in a place where it is customary not to build a partition between two people’s fields, and one person wishes to build a partition between his field and that of his neighbor, the court does not obligate his neighbor to build such a partition. Rather, if one person wishes to erect a partition, he must withdraw into his own field and build the partition there. And he makes a border mark on the outer side of the barrier facing his neighbor’s property, indicating that he built the entire structure of his own materials and on his own land. Therefore, if the wall later falls, the assumption is that the space where the wall stood and the stones belong only to him, as is indicated by the mark on the wall. Nevertheless, in a place where it is not customary to build a partition between two people’s fields, if they made such a partition with the agreement of the two of them, they build it in the middle, i.e., on the property line, and make a border mark on the one side and on the other side. Therefore, if the wall later falls, the assumption is that the space where the wall stood and the stones belong to both of them, to be divided equally.",
+ "With regard to one who surrounds another on three sides, that is, he owns parcels of land on three sides of the other person’s field, and he built a partition on the first, the second, and the third sides, the court does not obligate the neighbor who owns the inner field to contribute to the construction of the partition if he does not wish to do so. Rabbi Yosei says: If he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions.",
+ "In the case of a dividing wall in a jointly owned courtyard that fell, if one of the owners wishes to rebuild the wall, the court obligates the other owner to build the wall with him up to a height of four cubits. If after the wall was built one of the neighbors claims he alone constructed it and the other did not participate in its building, the latter is nevertheless presumed to have given his share of the money, unless the claimant brings proof that the other did not give his part. The court does not obligate the reluctant neighbor to contribute to the building of the wall higher than four cubits. But if the reluctant neighbor built another wall close to the wall that had been built higher than four cubits, in order to set a roof over the room that was thereby created, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the rebuilt wall, even though he has not yet set a roof over it. Since he has demonstrated his desire to make use of what his neighbor built, he must participate in the cost of its construction. If the builder of the first wall later claims that he did not receive payment from his neighbor, the neighbor is presumed not to have given his share of the money, unless he brings proof that he did in fact give money for the building of the wall.",
+ "The residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: Not all courtyards require a gatehouse, and each courtyard must be considered on its own in accordance with its specific needs. Similarly, the residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to contribute to the building of a wall, double doors, and a crossbar for the city. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: Not all towns require a wall. With regard to this latter obligation, the mishna asks: How long must one live in the city to be considered like one of the people of the city and therefore obligated to contribute to these expenses? Twelve months. But if he bought himself a residence in the city, he is immediately considered like one of the people of the city.",
+ "The court does not divide a courtyard at the request of one of the joint owners unless there will be in it four by four cubits for this one and four by four cubits for that one, i.e., this minimum area for each of the joint owners. And the court does not divide a jointly owned field unless there is space in it to plant nine kav of seed for this one and nine kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court does not divide a field unless there is space in it to plant nine half-kav of seed for this one and nine half-kav of seed for that one. And the court does not divide a jointly owned garden unless there is space in it to plant a half-kav of seed for this one and a half-kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Akiva says that half that amount is sufficient, i.e., the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova]. Similarly, the court does not divide a hall [hateraklin], a drawing room, a dovecote, a cloak, a bathhouse, an olive press, and an irrigated field unless there is enough for this one to use the property in the usual manner and enough for that one to use the property in the usual manner. This is the principle: Anything for which when it is divided, each of the parts is large enough to retain the name of the original item, the court divides it. But if the parts will not retain the original name, the court does not divide it. When does this rule apply? It applies when the joint owners do not both wish to divide the item; when only one of the owners wishes to divide the property, he cannot force the other to do so. But when both of them wish to divide the item, they may divide it, even if each of the owners will receive less than the amounts specified above. But in the case of sacred writings, i.e., a scroll of any of the twenty-four books of the Bible, that were inherited by two people, they may not divide them, even if both of them wish to do so, because it would be a show of disrespect to cut the scroll in half."
+ ],
+ [
+ "A person may not dig a pit close to the pit of another, in order to avoid damaging the latter’s pit. And similarly, one may not dig a ditch, nor a cave, i.e., a covered pit, nor a water channel, nor a launderer’s pond, which is a pit used for washing clothes, unless he distanced all of these three handbreadths from the wall of another and he plasters lime on the place where there is water. And one must distance the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, e.g., the refuse of olives from which oil has been squeezed, and animal manure, and salt, and lime, and rocks three handbreadths from the wall of another, as all these items produce heat and can damage the wall. Or, alternatively, he may plaster the wall with lime to prevent damage. One must likewise distance seeds, i.e., one may not plant seeds, and one may not operate the plow, and one must eliminate urine, three handbreadths from the wall of another. The mishna continues: And one must distance a mill from a neighbor’s wall by three handbreadths from the lower stone of the mill, which is four handbreadths from the smaller upper stone of the mill. And there must be a distance of three handbreadths from the protruding base [hakalya] of an oven until the wall, which is four handbreadths from the narrow upper rim [hassafa] of the oven.",
+ "A person may not set up an oven inside a house unless there is a space four cubits high above it, i.e., between the top of the oven and the ceiling, to avoid burning the ceiling, which serves as the floor of the residence above. If one was setting up an oven in the upper story, there must be a plaster floor beneath it, which serves as the ceiling of the lower story, at least three handbreadths thick, so that the ceiling below does not burn. And in the case of a stove the plaster floor must be at least one handbreadth thick. And if he causes damage in any case, he pays compensation for that which he damaged. Rabbi Shimon says: They said all of these measurements to teach only that if he causes damage he is exempt from paying, as he took all reasonable precautions. ",
+ "A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the storeroom of another, and he may not establish a cattle barn there, as these produce heat, smoke, and odors, which rise and damage the items in the storeroom. The mishna comments: In truth, the halakha is that in the case of a storeroom of wine the Sages rendered it permitted to set up a bakery and a dye shop beneath, as the heat that rises does not damage the wine. But they did not render it permitted to establish a cattle barn, because its odor damages the wine. If a resident wants to open a store in his courtyard, his neighbor can protest to prevent him from doing so and say to him: I am unable to sleep due to the sound of people entering the store and the sound of people exiting. But one may fashion utensils in his house and go out and sell them in the market, despite the fact that he is not allowed to set up a store in the courtyard, and the neighbor cannot protest against him doing so and say to him: I am unable to sleep due to the sound of the hammer you use to fashion utensils, nor can he say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the mill that you use to grind, nor can he say: I cannot sleep due to the sound of the children. It is permitted for one to make reasonable use of his own home.",
+ "One whose wall was close to the wall of another may not build another wall close to the neighbor’s wall unless he distances it four cubits from the wall of the neighbor. And one who desires to build a wall opposite the windows of a neighbor’s house must distance the wall four cubits from the windows, whether above, below, or opposite. ",
+ "One must distance his ladder four cubits from a neighbor’s dovecote so that a mongoose will not be able to jump from the ladder to the dovecote and devour the birds. And one must distance his wall four cubits from a roof gutter, so that the neighbor can lean a ladder in the empty space to clean and repair the gutter. One must distance a dovecote fifty cubits from the city to prevent doves from eating seeds in the town. And a person should not establish a dovecote within his own property unless he has fifty cubits in each direction between the dovecote and the edge of his property. Rabbi Yehuda says that one must have surrounding the dovecote the area required for sowing four kor of seed on each side, which generally extends as far as a dove flies in a single flight. And if one bought the dovecote with the land, he has the acquired privilege of its use even if it has surrounding it only the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova] around it, and he need not remove it from there.",
+ "With regard to a dove chick [nippul] that was found within fifty cubits of a dovecote, it belongs to the owner of the dovecote. If it was found beyond fifty cubits from a dovecote, it belongs to its finder. In a case where it was found between two dovecotes, if it was close to this one, it belongs to the owner of this dovecote; if it was close to that one, it belongs to the owner of that dovecote. If it was half and half, i.e., equidistant from the two dovecotes, the two owners divide the value of the chick. ",
+ "One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from the city, and in the cases of a carob tree and of a sycamore tree, which have a great many branches, they must be distanced fifty cubits. Abba Shaul says: Every barren tree must be distanced fifty cubits. And if the city preceded the tree, as one later planted the tree alongside the city, he cuts down the tree, and the city does not give money to the tree’s owner in compensation. And if the tree preceded the city, which expanded after one planted the tree until it reached the tree, he cuts down the tree and the city gives money to its owner. If it is uncertain whether this one was first or that one was first, he cuts down the tree and the city does not give money.",
+ "One must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city, so that the chaff will not harm the city’s residents. Furthermore, a person should not establish a permanent threshing floor even on his own property unless he has fifty cubits of open space in every direction. And one must distance a threshing floor from the plantings of another and from another’s plowed field far enough that it does not cause damage.",
+ "One must distance animal carcasses, and graves, and a tannery [haburseki], a place where hides are processed, fifty cubits from the city. One may establish a tannery only on the east side of the city, because winds usually blow from the west and the foul smells would therefore be blown away from the residential area. Rabbi Akiva says: One may establish a tannery on any side of a city except for the west, as the winds blowing from that direction will bring the odors into the city, and one must distance it fifty cubits from the city. ",
+ "One must distance from vegetables water in which flax is steeped, because this water ruins them; and likewise one must distance leeks from onions, and mustard from bees. And Rabbi Yosei permits one not to do so in the case of mustard.",
+ "One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a cistern, and in the case of a carob and of a sycamore tree, whose roots extend farther, one must distance the tree fifty cubits. This is the halakha whether the cistern or tree is located above or to the side of the other. If the digging of the cistern preceded the tree, the owner of the tree cuts down the tree and the owner of the cistern pays him money. And if the tree preceded the cistern the owner of the tree need not cut down the tree. If it is uncertain whether this came first or that came first, the owner of the tree need not cut down the tree. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the cistern preceded the tree, the owner of the tree need not cut down the tree. This is due to the fact that this one digs in his own property, and that one plants in his own property.",
+ "A person may not plant a tree near the field of another unless he distances it four cubits from the field. This is the case whether he is planting grapevines or any kind of tree. If there was a fence between them, this one may place, i.e., plant, his grapevines or trees close to the fence from here, and that one may place, i.e., plant, his produce close to the fence from there. If the roots were spreading into the field of another, the owner of the field may dig to a depth of three handbreadths even if he severs those roots, so that they do not impede his plow. If he was digging a cistern in that spot, or a ditch, or a cave, and he came upon the roots of his neighbor’s tree, he may cut downward normally, and the wood from the roots is his.",
+ "With regard to a tree that leans into the field of another, the neighbor may cut the branches to the height of an ox goad raised over the plow, in places where the land is to be plowed, so that the branches do not impede the use of the plow. And in the case of a carob tree and the case of a sycamore tree, whose abundance of branches cast shade that is harmful to plants, all the branches overhanging one’s property may be removed along the plumb line, i.e., along a line perpendicular to the boundary separating the fields. And if the neighbor’s field is an irrigated field, all branches of the tree are removed along the plumb line. Abba Shaul says: All barren trees are cut along the plumb line. ",
+ "With regard to a tree that extends into the public domain, one cuts its branches so that a camel can pass beneath the tree with its rider sitting on it. Rabbi Yehuda says: One cuts enough branches that a camel loaded with flax or bundles of branches can pass beneath it. Rabbi Shimon says: One cuts all branches of the tree that extend into the public domain along the plumb line, so that they do not hang over the public area at all, due to ritual impurity."
+ ],
+ [
+ "With regard to the presumptive ownership of houses; and of pits; and of ditches; and of caves, which are used to collect water; and of dovecotes; and of bathhouses; and of olive presses; and of irrigated fields, which must be watered by people; and of slaves; and all similar property that constantly, i.e., throughout the year, generates profits, their presumptive ownership is established by working and profiting from them for a duration of three years from day to day. If the one in possession of the property can prove that he worked and profited from it for the previous three full years, there is a presumption that it belongs to him, and would remain in his possession if another were to claim that the property belonged to him or to his ancestors. With regard to a non-irrigated field, i.e., one that is watered by rain, in which produce grows during certain seasons during the year, its presumption of ownership is established in three years, but they are not from day to day, since the fields are not worked and harvested continually throughout the three-year period. Rabbi Yishmael says: Three months of possession in the first year, three months of possession in the last year, and twelve months of possession in the middle, which are eighteen months, suffice to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a non-irrigated field. Rabbi Akiva says: A month of possession in the first year, and a month of possession in the last year, and twelve months of possession in the middle, which are fourteen months, suffice to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a non-irrigated field. Rabbi Yishmael said: In what case is this statement, that eighteen months are required for a non-irrigated field, said? It is said with regard to a white field [bisdeh lavan], i.e., a grain field. But with regard to a field of trees, once he gathered his produce, and then harvested his olives, and then gathered his figs, these three harvests are the equivalent of three years. Since he harvested three types of produce, this is equivalent to having possessed the field for three years.",
+ "There are three independent lands in Eretz Yisrael with regard to establishing presumptive ownership: Judea, and Transjordan, and the Galilee. If the prior owner of the field was in Judea and another took possession of his field in the Galilee, or if he was in the Galilee and another took possession of his field in Judea, the possessor does not establish presumptive ownership until the one possessing the field will be with the prior owner in one province. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages said that establishing presumptive ownership requires three years only in order that if the owner will be in Spain [Aspamya], and another possesses his field for a year, people will go and inform the owner by the end of the next year, and the owner will come back in the following year and take the possessor to court.",
+ "Any possession that is not accompanied by a claim explaining how the possessor became the owner is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. How so? If the prior owner said to the possessor: What are you doing in my land? And the possessor said to him in response: I am in possession of the land because no person ever said anything to me about my being here, i.e., he states no valid claim as to why he would be the owner of the land, his mere use is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. But if the possessor claimed: I am in possession of the land because you sold it to me, or: Because you gave it to me as a gift, or: Because your father sold it to me, or: Because your father gave it to me as a gift, these are valid claims to ownership. In these cases, his possession is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. And one who comes to claim the land based on inheritance does not need a claim explaining why his ancestors had a right to the land. Craftsmen who are in possession of items that they are repairing, and partners, and sharecroppers, and stewards [veha’apotropin] do not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to property in their possession, as their possession is not indicative of ownership. Similarly, a man does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to his wife’s property, and a wife does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to her husband’s property. And a father similarly does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a son’s property, and a son does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a father’s property. A husband and wife, or son and father, use each other’s property freely. Possession is therefore not indicative of ownership. The mishna continues: In what case is this statement, that one establishes the presumption of ownership after profiting from the property for a certain duration, with the exception of the above people, said? It is said in a case of one who has mere possession of the property, which does, in some cases, serve as proof of ownership. But in a case where another person gives one a gift, or there are brothers who divided their inheritance, or there is one who takes possession of the property of a convert who died without heirs and his property is now ownerless, as soon as one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, this is considered taking possession of the property, and it effects acquisition.",
+ "If there were two witnesses testifying on his behalf that he, the possessor of the land, worked and profited from a field for three years, and therefore has presumptive ownership, and they were found to be conspiring witnesses, as it was proven that they were not present to witness the matter about which they had testified, they must pay the true owner of the field the full value of the field that they attempted, through their testimony, to remove from his possession, as it is written in the Torah: “Then shall you do to him, as he had planned to do to his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19). If two witnesses testify that he worked and profited from the field during the first year, another two testify that he worked and profited from it during the second year, and another two testify that he worked and profited from it during the third, and all were found to be conspiring witnesses, payment of the value of the field to the owner is divided among them. If the testimony was given by three brothers, each of whom testify about one year, and another unrelated individual joined with each of the brothers as the second witness, these are three distinct testimonies and they are accepted by the court. If they were to be considered one testimony, it would not be accepted, as brothers may not testify together. But they are one testimony for the purpose of rendering them as conspiring witnesses, and the payment is divided among them.",
+ "These are uses of property that have the means to establish the presumption of ownership, and these are uses of property that do not have the means to establish the presumption of ownership: If one would stand an animal in a courtyard; or if one would place an oven, a millstone, or a stove there; or if one raises chickens in a courtyard, or places his fertilizer in a courtyard, these actions are not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. But if one constructed a partition ten handbreadths high to contain his animal, and similarly if he constructed a partition for his oven, and similarly if he constructed a partition for his stove, and similarly if he constructed a partition for his millstone; or if one brought chickens into the house, or if he fashioned a place in the ground for his fertilizer that is three handbreadths deep or three handbreadths high, these actions are sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.",
+ "With regard to a spout protruding from one’s roof gutter draining water into another’s property, its owner has no means to establish an acquired privilege for its use, but he does have the means to establish an acquired privilege with regard to its place, as the Gemara will explain. With regard to a gutter pipe that traverses the length of the roof, one does have the means to establish an acquired privilege for its use. With regard to an Egyptian ladder, which is small and portable, one has no means to establish an acquired privilege for its use. But with regard to a Tyrian ladder, which is large and fixed in place, one does have the means to establish an acquired privilege for its use. With regard to an Egyptian window, one has no means to establish an acquired privilege for its use; but with regard to a Tyrian window, one does have the means to establish an acquired privilege for its use. What is the defining feature of an Egyptian window? It is any window that is so small that a person’s head is not able to fit inside it. Rabbi Yehuda says: If a window has a frame, even though a person’s head is not able to fit inside it, one does have the means to establish an acquired privilege for its use. With regard to a projection emerging from the wall of one’s house, overhanging a courtyard, one has the means to establish an acquired privilege for its use if it protrudes at least as far as a handbreadth, and the owner of the courtyard can protest its construction. If it protrudes less than a handbreadth, the owner of the house has no means to establish an acquired privilege for its use, and the owner of the courtyard cannot protest its construction.",
+ "A person may not open his windows, i.e., build an opening in a wall to use as a window, into a courtyard belonging to partners, i.e., a courtyard in which he is a partner. If he purchased a house in another, adjacent courtyard, he may not open the house into a courtyard belonging to partners. If he built a loft on top of his house, he may not open it into a courtyard belonging to partners. Rather, if he desired to build a loft, he may build a room within his house, or he may build a loft on top of his house, and open it into his house, not directly into the courtyard. A person may not open an entrance opposite another entrance or a window opposite another window toward a courtyard belonging to partners, so as to ensure that the residents will enjoy a measure of privacy. If there was a small entrance he may not enlarge it. If there was one entrance he may not fashion it into two. But one may open an entrance opposite another entrance or a window opposite another window toward the public domain. Similarly, if there was a small entrance he may enlarge it, and if there was one entrance he may fashion it into two.",
+ "One may not form an empty space be-neath the public domain by digging pits, ditches, or caves. Rabbi Eliezer deems it permitted for one to do so, provided that he places a covering strong enough that a wagon laden with stones would be able to tread on it without breaking it, therefore ensuring that the empty space will not cause any damage to those in the public domain. One may not extend projections or balconies [ugzuztraot] into the public domain. Rather, if he desired to build one he may draw back into his property by moving his wall, and extend the projection to the end of his property line. If one purchased a courtyard in which there are projections and balconies extending into the public domain, this courtyard retains its presumptive status, i.e., the owner has the acquired privilege of their use, and the court does not demand their removal."
+ ],
+ [
+ "One who sells a house without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold the gallery, an extension built above or alongside the main building, and this is so even if the gallery is attached to the house and opens into it. Nor has he sold the room behind the house, even if it is accessible only from inside the house. He has also not sold the roof when it has a parapet ten handbreadths high, as such a roof is considered a separate entity and is therefore not included in the sale of the house. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the parapet has the form of a doorway, that is, if it consists of two upright posts with a beam crossing over them, then even if the parapet is not ten handbreadths high, the roof is not sold together with the house, unless it is specifically included in the sale.",
+ "One who sells a house without specification has sold neither the pit nor the cistern [dut], even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling him the depth and the height of the house, as anything that is not part of the house, like pits and cisterns, must be explicitly mentioned in the contract or else they remain in the seller’s possession. And therefore the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain to reach whatever remains his, because he has sold the area of the house along with the house itself, and he no longer has permission to walk there. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain, as this is certainly included in what he has withheld for himself from the sale. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller says to the buyer in the bill of sale: I am selling you this house apart from the pit and the cistern, he need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain. Since the seller unnecessarily emphasized that the pit and the cistern are not included in the sale, he presumably intended to reserve for himself the right of access to them. If the seller kept the house, but sold the pit and the cistern to another, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain to reach what he has bought. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain.",
+ "One who sells a house has, as part of the sale, sold also the door, but not the key. He has sold the mortar that is fixed in the ground, but not the portable one. He has sold the immovable lower millstone [ha’itzterobil], but not the portable upper stone [hakelet], the funnel into which one pours the grain to be ground. And he has sold neither the oven nor the double stove, as they are deemed movable. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it, and everything that is in it, all these components are sold as part of the sale of the house.",
+ "One who sells a courtyard without specifying what is included in the sale has sold with it the houses, pits, ditches, and caves found in the courtyard, but he has not sold the movable property. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, all these components are sold along with the courtyard, even the movable property. Both in this case, where he executes the sale without specification, and in that case, where he adds the phrase that includes the movable property, he has not sold the bathhouse, nor has he sold the olive press that is in the courtyard, as each is an entity with a discrete purpose and not an integral part of the courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells a courtyard without specifying what is included in the sale has sold only the airspace, i.e., the open space, of the courtyard, but nothing found in the courtyard, not even the houses.",
+ "One who sells an olive press without specifying what is included in the sale has sold with it the yam and the memel and the betulot, the immovable elements of the olive press. But he has not sold with it the avirim and the galgal and the kora, the movable utensils of the olive press. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, all these components are sold along with the olive press, even the movable utensils. Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells an olive press has sold the kora as well, as it is the most fundamental element of the olive press.",
+ "One who sells a bathhouse without specifying what is included in the sale has not sold with it the boards that are placed on the floor, nor has he sold the basins or the curtains [habilaniyot]. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, all these components are sold along with the bathhouse. Both in this case, where he executes the sale without specification, and in that case, where he adds the phrase that he is selling everything that is in the bathhouse, he has not sold the tanks of water, nor has he sold the storerooms for wood, as an explicit sales agreement is required for these matters.",
+ "One who sells a city without specifying what is included in the sale has sold with it the houses, the pits, the ditches and caves, the bathhouses and the dovecotes, and the olive presses and beit hashelaḥin, as will be explained in the Gemara, but he has not sold the movable property in the city. But when the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, even if there were cattle and Canaanite slaves in the city, all these entities are sold. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells a city has sold with it the santar, the meaning of which will be explained in the Gemara.",
+ "One who sells a field without specifying what is included in the sale has sold the stones in the field that are for its use, and the reeds in the vineyard that are for its use, and the produce that is still attached to the ground, and the cluster of reeds that occupy less than the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova], and the watch station that is not plastered with clay, and the young carob tree that has not yet been grafted, and the untrimmed sycamore that is still young.",
+ "But he has not sold along with the field the stones that are not designated for use in the field, and not the reeds in the vineyard that are not designated for its use, and not the produce that is already detached from the ground. When the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you it and everything that is in it, all these components are sold along with the field. Both in this case, where he executes the sale without specification, and in that case, where he adds the phrase that he is selling everything that is in the field, he has not sold the cluster of reeds that occupy a beit rova or more, as they are considered a separate field, and he has not sold the watch station that is plastered with clay, and not the carob tree that has been grafted, and not the sycamore trunk. All of these entities are significant in their own right and have a status independent from that of the fields, and they are therefore not included in the sale of the field. In continuation of the previous mishna (68b) discussing one who sells a field, the mishna teaches that even if he says that he is selling it and everything that is in it, has sold neither the cistern, nor the winepress, nor the dovecote, whether it is abandoned or utilized, as these items are not part of the field itself. And the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain to reach whatever remains his. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that one who sells, sells generously; therefore, whatever is not explicitly excluded from the sale is assumed to be sold, and it is presumed that the seller did not retain for himself the right to the path that he requires to access his property. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase a path through the buyer’s domain, as it is assumed that since the seller withholds these items for himself, he also reserves a path to reach them. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller says to the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling the field apart from these things, i.e., the cistern and the winepress, he need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain. Since these items would have been excluded from the sale even if he had said nothing, it is assumed that he also meant to reserve for himself the right to access them. But if the seller kept the field but sold the cistern and winepress to another person, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain to reach what he has bought, since a seller sells generously. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain. In what case is this statement, that these items are excluded, said? It is said with regard to one who sells a field, but with regard to one who gives it away as a gift, it is assumed that he gives all of it, including everything found in the field. Similarly, with regard to brothers who divide their father’s estate among themselves, when they each acquire a field as part of their inheritance, they acquire all of it, including the items that would be excluded from a sale. So too, with regard to one who takes possession of the property of a convert, when he takes possession of a field, he takes possession of all of it. One who consecrates a field has consecrated all of it. Rabbi Shimon says: One who consecrates a field has not consecrated any of the items that are ordinarily excluded from a sale except for the grafted carob tree and the sycamore trunk."
+ ],
+ [
+ "One who sells a ship has sold along with it the toren, and the nes, and the ogin, and all of the equipment that is used for directing it. But he has not sold the slaves who serve as oarsmen, nor the packing bags that are used for transporting goods, nor the antikei on the ship. And when one said to the buyer: You are purchasing it, the ship, and all that it contains, all of these latter elements are also sold. One who sold a wagon [hakkaron] has not sold the mules that pull the wagon. Similarly, if one sold the mules, he has not sold the wagon. One who sold a yoke [hatzemed] has not sold the oxen, and one who sold the oxen has not sold the yoke. Rabbi Yehuda says: The sum of money indicates what one has sold. How so? If the buyer said to the seller: Sell me your yoke for two hundred dinars, since it is a known matter that a yoke is not sold for two hundred dinars he clearly intended to purchase the oxen as well. And the Rabbis say: The sum of money is not proof.",
+ "One who sells a donkey has not sold its vessels, i.e., its equipment, with it. Naḥum the Mede says: He has sold its vessels. Rabbi Yehuda says: There are times when the vessels are sold, and there are times when they are not sold. How so? If the donkey was before him and its vessels were on it, and the buyer said to him: Sell me this donkey of yours, its vessels are sold. If the buyer said to him: Is the donkey yours; I wish to purchase it, its vessels are not sold.",
+ "One who sells a female donkey has sold its foal along with it. But one who sold a cow has not sold its young. One who sold a dunghill has sold its manure. One who sold a cistern has sold its water. One who sold a beehive has sold the bees in it, and likewise one who sold a dovecote has sold the doves. One who buys the produce of a dovecote from another, i.e., the doves that will hatch over the course of the year in a dovecote, must leave [mafriaḥ] the first pair of doves from the brood for the seller. If one buys the produce of a beehive, i.e., all the bees produced from a beehive over the course of the year, the buyer takes three swarms and then the seller renders the bees impotent, so that they will stop producing offspring and instead produce only honey. One who buys honeycombs must leave two combs. If one buys olive trees for felling, he must leave two shoots for the seller.",
+ "With regard to one who buys two trees in the field of another, this one has not acquired any ground, but only the trees. Rabbi Meir says: He has acquired the ground under them. The mishna states a halakha in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna: If the trees grew, the owner of the field may not cut down their branches, despite the fact that their shade damages his field. And that which grows out of the trunk is his, i.e., it belongs to the owner of the tree, but that which grows out of the roots belongs to the owner of the ground. And if the trees died, their owner has no rights to the ground where the trees had stood. If one bought three trees, he has acquired the ground along with them. If they grew, the owner of the field may cut down their branches, as he sold a specific piece of land along with the trees, not his entire field. And that which grows out of the trunk and out of the roots is his, i.e., it belongs to the owner of the trees. And if the trees died, the owner of the trees still has possession of the ground, as it was sold along with the trees.",
+ "One who sells the head of a large domesticated animal has not sold along with it the forelegs, as each part is considered important in its own right. All the more so, if one sold the forelegs he has not sold the head. Similarly, if one sold the windpipe and the lungs he has not sold the liver, despite the fact that they are sometimes attached, and if he sold the liver he has not sold the windpipe and lungs. But in the case of small domesticated animals, if one sold the head he has sold the forelegs, although if one sold the legs he has not sold the head. Likewise, if one sold the windpipe and lungs he has sold the liver, but if he sold the liver he has not sold the windpipe and lungs.",
+ "There are four basic cases with regard to sellers and buyers. If the seller sold him wheat and said that the wheat was good, and it is found to be bad, the buyer, but not the seller, can renege on the sale. If the seller sold him what he thought was bad wheat and it is found to be good, the seller can renege on the sale but the buyer cannot. If he sold bad wheat and it is found to be bad, or good wheat and it is found to be good, neither one of them can renege on the sale, as the condition of the sale was met. If the seller sold reddish-brown wheat and it is found to be white, or white wheat and it is found to be reddish-brown, and similarly, if he sold olive wood and it is found to be wood of a sycamore, or he sold wood of a sycamore and it is found to be wood of an olive tree, or if the seller sold him wine and it is found to be vinegar, or vinegar and it is found to be wine, in all of these cases both the seller and the buyer can renege on the sale. Since the sale was for a different item than that which was delivered, the transaction can be nullified even if there was no mistake with regard to the price.",
+ "This mishna discusses several methods of acquiring movable property. With regard to one who sells produce to another, if the buyer pulled the produce but did not measure it, he has acquired the produce through the act of acquisition of pulling. If he measured the produce but did not pull it, he has not acquired it, and either the seller or the buyer can decide to rescind the sale. If the buyer is perspicacious and wants to acquire the produce without having to pull it, and he wishes to do so before the seller could change his mind and decide not to sell, he rents its place, where the produce is located, and his property immediately effects acquisition of the produce on his behalf. With regard to one who buys flax from another, because flax is usually carried around this purchaser has not acquired it until he carries it from place to place and acquires it by means of the act of acquisition of lifting. Pulling the flax is ineffective. And if it was attached to the ground, and he detached any amount, he has acquired it, as the Gemara will explain.",
+ "With regard to one who sells food or drink that has an established price, such as wine and oil, to another, and the price rises or falls and the buyer or the seller wishes to renege on the sale, if the price changed before the measuring vessel is filled, the merchandise still belongs to the seller and he can cancel the sale. Once the measuring vessel is filled the merchandise belongs to the buyer, and the seller can no longer cancel the sale. And if there was a middleman [sarsur] between them and the barrel belonging to the middleman, being used to measure the merchandise, broke during the transaction and the merchandise is ruined, it broke for the middleman, i.e., he is responsible for the ruined merchandise. The mishna teaches an additional halakha with regard to sales: And anyone who sells wine, oil, or similar liquids is obligated, after he transfers the liquid into the buyer’s vessel, to drip for him three extra drops from the measure. After he drips those three drops, if he turned the barrel on its side and drained out the last bits of liquid that it contained, this belongs to the seller and he is not required to give these last drops to the buyer. And a storekeeper is not obligated to drip three drops, because he is too busy to do this constantly. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the sale occurs on Shabbat eve as nightfall arrives, one is exempt from dripping these three drops, as there is a need to complete the transaction before Shabbat begins.",
+ "With regard to one who sends his son to a storekeeper with a pundeyon, a coin worth two issar, in his hand, and the storekeeper measured oil for him for one issar and gave him the second issar as change, and the son broke the jug and lost the issar, the storekeeper must compensate the father, as he gave the jug and coin to one who is not halakhically competent. Rabbi Yehuda exempts him from liability, as he holds that the father sent his son in order to do this, i.e., to bring back the jug and coin. And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to a case when the jug is in the hand of the child and the storekeeper measured the oil into it that the storekeeper is exempt if the child breaks the jug.",
+ "A wholesaler [hassiton] must clean his measuring vessels, which are used for measuring liquids such as oil and wine, once every thirty days, because the residue of the liquids sticks to the measure and reduces its capacity. And a homeowner who sells his goods must clean his measuring vessels only once every twelve months. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The matters are reversed. In the case of one who is constantly using his vessels for selling merchandise the residue does not adhere to the measuring vessel, and therefore a wholesaler must clean his measures only once a year. But in the case of a homeowner, who does not sell as often, the residue adheres to the measuring vessel; therefore, he must clean them every thirty days. A storekeeper, who constantly sells merchandise in small quantities, cleans his measuring vessels twice a week and cleans his weights once a week; and he cleans the pans of his scales after each and every weighing, to ensure that no merchandise has adhered to the pans, thereby increasing their weight. ",
+ "Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement, that it is necessary to clean a measuring vessel, said? With regard to moist items, which are likely to adhere to the measuring vessels. But with regard to dry goods, which do not adhere to the measuring vessels, one does not need to clean his measuring vessels. And before adding the weights and merchandise the seller is obligated to let the pans of the scale that will hold the merchandise tilt an extra handbreadth for the buyer by adding a weight to that side. If the seller weighed for him exactly, i.e., with the scales equally balanced initially, instead of allowing the scales to tilt an extra handbreadth, he must give the buyer additional amounts [geirumin], an additional one-tenth in the case of liquids sold by weight, and an additional one-twentieth in the case of dry goods. The mishna continues to discuss the correct method of weighing: In a place where they were accustomed to measure merchandise in several stages with a small measuring vessel, one may not measure all the items at once with a single large measuring vessel. In a place where they measure with one large measuring vessel, one may not measure with several small measuring vessels. In a place where the custom is to level the top of the measuring vessel to remove substances heaped above its edges, one may not heap it, and where the custom is to heap it, one may not level it."
+ ],
+ [
+ "With regard to one who sells produce to another that is sometimes purchased for consumption and sometimes for planting, and the buyer planted it and it did not sprout, and even if he had sold flaxseeds, which are only occasionally eaten, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for them, i.e., he is not required to compensate the buyer. Since the buyer did not specify that he purchased the produce in order to plant it, the seller can claim that he assumed the buyer intended to eat it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he had sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, then the seller bears financial responsibility for them, as they were certainly purchased for planting.",
+ "When selling a significant quantity of produce or a number of items, there is a possibility that there will be a certain proportion of impurities in it or that some of the product will be of substandard quality. The mishna delineates what proportion is considered acceptable, for which a buyer may not demand compensation. With regard to one who sells produce, i.e., grain, to another, this buyer accepts upon himself that up to a quarter-kav of impurities may be present in each se’a of produce purchased. When purchasing figs, he accepts upon himself that up to ten infested figs may be present in each hundred figs purchased. When purchasing a cellar containing barrels of wine, he accepts upon himself that up to ten barrels of souring wine may be present in each hundred barrels purchased. When purchasing jugs of wine in the Sharon region, he accepts upon himself that up to ten inferior-quality jugs [pitasot] of wine may be present in each hundred jugs purchased.",
+ "If one sells wine to another and then it sours, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for its loss. But if it is known of this seller that his wine always sours, then this sale is a mistaken transaction, i.e., one based upon false assumptions, as the buyer intended to purchase wine that would maintain its quality; therefore, the seller must reimburse the buyer. And if the seller said to the buyer: It is wine that is spiced, which is preserved and of lasting quality, that I am selling to you, then he bears financial responsibility to provide him with wine that will keep until the festival of Shavuot. And if the seller said: I am selling you old wine, he is responsible to provide wine from the previous year. And if he said: I am selling you aged wine, he is responsible to provide wine that is from three years earlier.",
+ "With regard to one who sells a plot of land to another, with the buyer intending to build a bridal house for his son or a widowhood home for his daughter on that plot, and similarly, with regard to a contractor who receives a plot of land from another under a commission to build for the owner on that land a bridal house for his son, or a widowhood home for his daughter, the terms of the transaction are a matter of dispute. The mishna presents the dispute: In the latter case, the contractor must build a building that is at least four cubits by six cubits in size, and similarly, in the case of the sale, the seller must provide a plot of land that can accommodate a building of that size; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says: A structure of this size is a cowshed, and a bridal house or a widowhood home is larger than that. One who wants to construct a cowshed builds a structure at least four cubits by six cubits in size. The mishna delineates the standard dimensions for various other structures. A small house is six by eight cubits. A large house is eight by ten cubits. A banquet hall [teraklin] is ten by ten cubits. The standard height for each of these structures is equal to the sum of half its length and half its width. There is a proof of the matter; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The proportions are like the building of the Sanctuary; it was forty cubits wide and twenty cubits long and its height was thirty cubits, which is the sum of half the width and half the length.",
+ "One who has ownership of a cistern located beyond the house of another, i.e., the cistern can be accessed only by entering the property of the other, and also has access rights to that cistern, may enter the house to access his cistern only at a time when it is usual for people to enter, and may leave only at a time when it is usual for people to leave. And in addition, he may not bring his animal into the house and water it from his cistern; rather, he must fill a pail with water from the cistern and water his animal outside. And this one, the owner of the cistern, constructs for himself a lock on the entrance to the cistern to prevent the homeowner from drawing water from it, and that one, the homeowner, constructs for himself a lock.",
+ "One who has ownership of a garden located beyond the garden of another, and also has access rights to it, may enter his garden only at a time when it is usual for people to enter, and may leave only at a time when it is usual for people to leave. Furthermore, he may not bring merchants into his garden, and he may not enter the garden solely in order to use it as a passageway, to enter from it into another field. And the owner of the outer garden may sow the path leading to the inner garden. If the court gave him an access path from the side of the outer garden, with the agreement of both of them, he may enter at any time he wants, and leave at any time he wants, and may bring merchants into the inner garden. But he may still not enter the garden solely in order to enter from it into another field. In such a case, neither this one, the owner of the inner garden, nor that one, the owner of the outer garden, is permitted to plant that side path.",
+ "In the case of one who had a public thoroughfare passing through his field, and he appropriated it and instead gave the public an alternative thoroughfare on the side of his property, the halakha is that the thoroughfare that he gave them, he gave them, and they may use it. But the original thoroughfare that he took for himself has not reached him, i.e., he cannot appropriate it for his personal use. The standard width of a private path is four cubits. If a field owner sells the right to pass through his field to an individual, without specifying the width of the path, he must provide him with a path four cubits wide. The standard width of a public thoroughfare is sixteen cubits. The width of a king’s thoroughfare has no maximum measure, as the king may appropriate whatever width thoroughfare he wishes. The width of the path for the burial procession to a grave has no maximum measure. With regard to the practice of standing and comforting the mourners following a funeral, the judges of Tzippori said that the standard requisite size is the area required for sowing four kav of seed.",
+ "There is the case of one who sells a plot of land to another in order for him to construct for himself an underground catacomb, and similarly the case of a contractor who receives a plot of land from another under a commission to construct for him a catacomb. If the size of the catacomb was not specified, then he should make the inside of each burial chamber four cubits wide by six cubits long and open up into the chamber, by digging into its walls, eight burial niches [kukhin] in which the coffins will rest. Three niches should be opened up from the wall here, along the length of the chamber, and three from there, along the other side, and two niches from the wall facing the entrance. And these niches should be formed so that their length is four cubits and their height is seven handbreadths, and their width is six handbreadths. Rabbi Shimon says: He should construct the inside of each burial chamber six cubits wide by eight cubits long and open up into the chamber, by digging into its walls, thirteen burial niches. Four niches should be opened up from the wall here, along the length of the chamber, and four from there, along the other side, and three niches from the wall facing the entrance, and one from the right of the entrance and another one from the left. The mishna describes the general structure of the catacomb: And he must fashion a courtyard at the entrance of the burial chamber that should be six cubits by six cubits, which is equal to the combined length of the bier of the deceased and those who bury him, to ensure adequate room for the burial to take place. And he should open up two burial chambers into the courtyard, one from here and one from there, i.e., on opposite sides of the courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: He should open up four burial chambers, one on each of the courtyard’s four sides. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is dependent on the nature of the bedrock. If the bedrock is hard and strong it will be able to accommodate more niches, which will be more closely packed together, with less bedrock between them. If the bedrock is softer, fewer and more sparsely spaced niches should be formed."
+ ],
+ [
+ "If one says to another: I am selling you a plot of earth of the size required for sowing one kor of seed [beit kor], and there on that plot there were crevices [neka’im] ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high, they are not measured together with the rest of the field. Rather, the buyer must be provided with land measuring a beit kor exclusive of those crevices or rocks. If the crevices or rocks measured less than ten handbreadths, they are measured together with the rest of the field. But if the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you a plot of earth that is about the size of a beit kor, then even if there on that plot there were crevices deeper than ten handbreadths or rocks higher than ten handbreadths, they are measured together with the rest of the field.",
+ "If one says to another: I am selling you a plot of earth the size of a beit kor, measured precisely with a rope, and he gave him even the slightest amount less than what was stipulated, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price of the field and return money to the buyer. If he gave him even the slightest amount more than what was stipulated, the buyer must return the difference to the seller. And if the seller said to the buyer that he is selling him a beit kor of land more or less, then even if he gave him a quarter-kav per se’a less than what was stipulated, or he gave him a quarter-kav per se’a more that what was stipulated, i.e., he gave him one twenty-fourth more or less than what was required, it is his. The sale is valid, since the seller told the buyer in advance that he was not committing himself to precise measurements. If the difference is greater than that amount, he must make a calculation, and the party that suffered a loss must be compensated. If the buyer received too much land, so that he must now compensate the seller, what does he return to him? He returns money, i.e., he pays the seller for the surplus land. And if the seller so wishes, the buyer returns the surplus land to him. Why then did the Sages say that he returns money to him? They said this in order to enhance the power of the seller, and enable him to demand payment for the surplus land, rather than accept its return. As, if the surplus in the field was an area required for sowing nine kav of seed, and in a garden an area required for sowing a half-kav of seed, or, according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, an area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed (see 11a), the buyer must return the land itself to the seller, and the seller cannot demand payment in money. And if the surplus is greater than a quarter-kav per se’a, it is not only the quarter-kav that he returns; rather, he returns all of the surplus. Since he is already required to make a refund, the refund must be made in the precise amount.",
+ "If the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you a plot of land of a certain size measured precisely with a rope more or less, thereby attaching to the sale two contradictory stipulations; in this case, the words: More or less, nullify the words: Measured precisely with a rope. Accordingly, if the surplus did not exceed a quarter-kav per se’a, the sale is valid as is. Similarly, if the seller says to the buyer: I am selling you a plot of land of a certain size more or less measured precisely with a rope, the words: Measured precisely with a rope, nullify the words: More or less, since the principle is that in all cases, one should attend to the final expression; this is the statement of ben Nanas. If one sells a field to another, telling him that he is selling him a field measuring a beit kor, with its particular demarcations and borders that the seller specifies for the buyer, the field’s measurement is not treated in as exacting a manner as in a standard sale. Therefore, if it later turns out that the field was not precisely a beit kor, but the difference is still less than one-sixth, the field is the buyer’s, and the sale is valid as is. But if the difference is greater, e.g., one-quarter or one-fifth, then, until it is calculated at one-sixth, the seller must deduct the difference from the purchase price and return money to the buyer.",
+ "If one says to another: I am selling you half a field, without specifying which half he is selling, an assessment is made of the field, which is then divided between them, and the buyer takes half of the seller’s field. If the seller says: I am selling you the half that is on the southern side of the field, an assessment is made of the northern and the southern sides of the field, which is then divided between them, and he takes the half on the southern side. And he accepts upon himself to provide the space for the fence between the two halves of the field out of his own property. He also accepts to provide out of his own property the space for the larger ditch and the smaller ditch, which are meant to keep animals out of the field. And how wide is the larger ditch? Six handbreadths. And how wide is the smaller ditch? Three handbreadths."
+ ],
+ [
+ "There are family members who both inherit from and bequeath to each other upon their respective deaths; and there are those who inherit from certain relatives but do not bequeath to them; and there are those who bequeath to certain relatives but do not inherit from them; and there are those who, despite being relatives, do not inherit from nor bequeath to one another. The mishna lists those referred to above. And these both inherit and bequeath: A father with regard to his sons, and sons with regard to their father, and paternal brothers; all inherit from one another and bequeath to each other. A man with regard to his mother, and a man with regard to his wife, and sons of sisters, i.e., nephews born to the sisters of the deceased, all inherit from their respective relatives but do not bequeath to them. A woman with regard to her sons, and a woman with regard to her husband, and maternal uncles, all bequeath to their respective relatives but do not inherit from them. And maternal brothers, despite being blood relatives, do not inherit from each other nor do they bequeath to one another, as they are not considered relatives for the purpose of inheritance.",
+ "The order of precedence with regard to inheritances is this: The verse states: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). This teaches that a son precedes a daughter. Additionally, all descendants of a son precede a daughter. A daughter precedes the brothers of the deceased. Additionally, the descendants of a daughter precede the brothers of the deceased. Brothers of the deceased precede the uncles of the deceased. Additionally, the descendants of the brothers precede the uncles. This is the principle: Concerning anyone who precedes another with regard to inheritance, his descendants precede the other as well, and a father who inherits precedes all of his descendants.",
+ "Zelophehad’s daughters took three portions of land in the inheritance of Eretz Yisrael: Their father’s portion that he received because he was among those who left Egypt; and his portion that he received with his brothers in the property of Hepher, their father; and an additional portion that he received from Hepher because he was a firstborn, and a firstborn takes two portions of inheritance from his father.",
+ "Both the son and the daughter of the deceased are included in the halakhot of inheritance. But the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother. And another difference is that the daughters are sustained from the property of the father after he dies, as it is a mandatory condition of their mother’s marriage contract that they are to be sustained even before the estate is disbursed to the children, but the daughters are not sustained from the property of the mother, which is all inherited by the sons.",
+ "In a case of one who says: So-and-so, my firstborn son, will not take a double portion of my estate; or one who says: So-and-so, my son, will not inherit my estate among his brothers, he has said nothing, as he has stipulated counter to that which is written in the Torah. With regard to one on his deathbed who apportions his property orally, granting it to his sons as a gift, and he increased the portion given to one of his sons and reduced the portion given to one son, or equated the portion of the firstborn to the portions of the other sons, his statement stands. But if he said that they will receive the property not as a gift but as inheritance, he has said nothing. If he wrote in his will, whether at the beginning, or in the middle, or at the end, that he is granting them the property as a gift, his statement stands. In a case of one who says: So-and-so will inherit from me, in a case where there is a daughter, or: My daughter will inherit from me, in a case where there is a son, he has said nothing, as he has stipulated counter to that which is written in the Torah concerning the order of inheritance. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: If he said this about one fit to inherit from him, his statement stands, but if it was about one for whom it was not fit to inherit from him, his statement does not stand. With regard to one who wrote a document granting his property to others as a gift and left his sons with nothing, what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect; but the Sages are displeased with him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he did so because his sons were not acting properly, he is remembered positively.",
+ "One who says: This is my son, is deemed credible. One who says: This is my brother, is not deemed credible with regard to his other brothers’ obligation to share the inheritance with the subject of his statement. When one claims that this man is his brother, this claim is accepted with regard to the speaker’s own portion, and the man in question takes a share of their father’s inheritance with him, i.e., from his portion. If the man in question dies, the property he received from the father’s inheritance shall return to its place, i.e., to the possession of the brother who testified on his behalf, from whose portion he received a share. If property came into the man in question’s possession from somewhere else, other than from the father, and the man in question died, all of the brothers of the one who testified shall inherit with the one who testified, as according to his claim they too are the heirs of the deceased. With regard to one who died, and a will written by a person on his deathbed [dayetikei] is found bound to his thigh, which clearly indicates that it was written by him and was not forged, this is nothing. The will is not valid, as he did not give it to anyone, and he may have reconsidered. If he transferred ownership of the will to the designated recipient through another person, whether one of the heirs or whether not one of the heirs, his statement stands.",
+ "A healthy person who writes a document granting his property to his sons in his lifetime, but wishes to continue to derive benefit from it until his death, must write: I give the property from today and after my death. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He need not write: From today and after my death; it is sufficient for him to write that the transfer will take effect after he dies. If one writes a document granting his property to his son from today and after his death, the father cannot sell the property because it is written as granted to the son, and the son cannot sell it because it is still in the possession of the father with regard to using the property and consuming its produce. If the father sold the property, it is sold to the purchaser inasmuch as he may use it and consume its produce until the father dies, at which point it belongs to the son. If the son sold it during his father’s lifetime, the purchaser has no right to use it until the father dies. In continuation of the case discussed in the previous mishna of a father who wrote a document granting his property to his son but reserved the rights to the produce during his lifetime, the mishna states that the father may detach produce from the land and feed the produce to whomever he wishes, and what he left detached at the time of his death belongs to all the father’s heirs, not only to this son. If a person died and left adult and minor sons, the adults are not provided for by using funds of the minors, and the minors are not sustained, i.e., they do not receive food, by using funds of the adults. Rather, they receive a share of the inheritance equally, and each son sees to his needs from his own share. If the adults married, the minors marry, as the Gemara will explain. But if the minors say: We are marrying in the same manner that you adults married during our father’s lifetime, the court does not listen to them. Rather, whatever their father gave the adults in his lifetime he gave them, and the minors do not have the right to receive more than their share of the inheritance. ",
+ "Similarly, if the father left adult and minor daughters but no sons, in which case his daughters inherit the estate, the adults are not provided for by using funds of the minors, and the minors are not sustained by using funds of the adults. Rather, they receive a share of the inheritance equally, and each daughter sees to her needs from her share. If the adult daughters married, the minor daughters marry, as the Gemara will explain. But if the minors say: We are marrying in the same manner that you adults married during our father’s lifetime, the court does not listen to them. This following halakha is a stringency with regard to daughters’ inheritance vis-à-vis sons’ inheritance: The halakha is that the daughters are sustained by using funds of the sons, as stipulated in their mother’s marriage contract, but they are not sustained by using funds of the other daughters."
+ ],
+ [
+ "In the case of one who died and left behind both sons and daughters, when the estate is large the sons inherit the estate and the daughters are provided with sustenance from it according to the stipulations of the deceased’s marriage contract with their mother. With regard to a small estate, which is insufficient to provide for both the sons and the daughters, the daughters are provided with sustenance. And if the sons, who receive in this case neither inheritance nor sustenance, have no other means with which to support themselves, they go and request charity at the doors. Admon says, rhetorically: I lost out just because I am male? Rather, he holds that the sons also receive sustenance. Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon.",
+ "With regard to one who left behind sons and daughters and a tumtum, whose halakhic status as male or female is indeterminate, the halakha is as follows: When the estate is large the males direct the tumtum to the females and exclude him from the inheritance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is female. When the estate is small, the females direct the tumtum to the males and exclude him from receiving sustenance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is male. With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive a gift of one hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a male, the offspring receives one hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive a gift of two hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a female, the offspring receives two hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive a gift of one hundred dinars and if she gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive a gift of two hundred dinars, and in fact she gave birth to both a male and a female, the male offspring receives one hundred dinars and the female offspring receives two hundred dinars. If she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum does not receive anything. If he said: Whatever offspring my wife gives birth to shall receive a gift of a certain sum, and she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum receives it. And if there is no heir other than the tumtum, the tumtum inherits all of the estate.",
+ "In the case of one who died and left behind adult and minor sons, if the adult sons enhanced the property, they enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is distributed among all the heirs. If the adult sons said from the outset: See that which our father left behind; we are going to engage in business with our share of the property and profit from it, then they enhanced the property for themselves. And similarly, with regard to a wife who enhanced the property of her deceased husband, she enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is divided between her and the heirs. If she said: See that which my husband left me; I am going to engage in business with my share and profit from it, then she enhanced the property for herself.",
+ "With regard to brothers who were also partners, and it occurred that one of them was summoned to public service, which is assessed per family, he was summoned from the middle, i.e., the profits or expenses of his service are divided among them. If one of the brothers became sick and sought treatment, the cost of the treatment is paid from his own resources. It was common practice for friends of a groom to give him gifts in order to help cover the expenses of the wedding feast. These gifts are known as gifts of groomsmen, and would be reciprocated in turn. While the groom and the groomsman were at times the recipient and the giver of the gifts, respectively, the gifts were at times provided by the father of the groomsman and received by the father of the groom. In the case of brothers, some of whom brought gifts of groomsmen in their father’s lifetime, which were provided by their father, when the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated after the father’s death, when one of the brothers gets married, they are reciprocated to the middle, i.e., the gift is divided among the brothers. This is because gifts of groomsmen are a legal debt owed to the father, collectible in court. But with regard to one who sends his friend jugs of wine or jugs of oil, a reciprocal gift is not collectible in court, because they are considered acts of kindness.",
+ "With regard to one who sends presents [sivlonot] to his father-in-law’s house following his betrothal, even if he sent there the sum of ten thousand dinars and subsequently ate there a groom’s feast even worth the value of a single dinar, if for any reason the marriage is not effected, the presents are not collected in return by the formerly betrothed man. If he did not eat a groom’s feast there, the presents are collected, as they were not an unconditional gift. If he sent many presents with the stipulation that they return with her to her husband’s house, i.e., to his own house, after the wedding, these are collected if the marriage is not effected. If he sent a few presents for her to use while in her father’s house, they are not collected.",
+ "With regard to a person on his death-bed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, and he reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands even if he subsequently recovers. If he did not reserve for himself any amount of land, and he recovered, his gift does not stand, as the gift was conditional upon his death, since is it evident that he did not intend to leave himself without means of support. If one did not write in the deed that he was on his deathbed, and he then recovered and wished to retract the gift, and he says: I was on my deathbed, and since I recovered, I can retract the gift, but the recipients say: You were healthy, and the gift cannot be retracted, the giver must bring proof that he was on his deathbed in order to retract the gift. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and since the property is in the possession of the giver, the recipients must bring proof that they have the right to receive it.",
+ "With regard to one who divides his property between various recipients by means of verbal instruction, Rabbi Elazar says: Both in the case of one who is healthy and in the case of one who is dangerously ill, the halakha is as follows: Property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, is acquired by means of money, by a deed of transfer, or by taking possession of it. And that which does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired only by pulling. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Elazar: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and who said: My brooch shall be given to my daughter, and it is valued at twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages upheld her statement. This indicates that a person on his deathbed can gift property without an act of acquisition. Rabbi Elazar said to them: That case was different; the sons of Rokhel should be buried by their mother, i.e., he cursed them. It is not possible to bring a proof from this incident, as these sons were wicked people. Consequently, when ruling in this matter the Sages did not act in accordance with the halakha, but allowed the mother of the sons of Rokhel to give this valuable piece of jewelry to their sister without an act of acquisition having been performed. Rabbi Eliezer says: On Shabbat, the verbal statement of a person on his deathbed stands, as he cannot write, and the Sages instituted that he can effect the transaction verbally lest the inability to do so exacerbate his condition. But a verbal instruction does not stand if stated on a weekday. Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to Shabbat, the Sages stated that his verbal instruction is sufficient, even though writing is prohibited. One can infer a fortiori that the same applies with regard to a weekday, when writing is permitted. Similarly, one can acquire property on behalf of a minor, but one cannot acquire property on behalf of an adult, since he can perform the act of acquisition himself; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The Sages stated this halakha with regard to a minor, and one may infer a fortiori that this also applies with regard to an adult, who is able to perform the act of acquisition himself.",
+ "A house collapsed on a son and upon his father, or upon a certain person and upon those from whom he stands to inherit, and it is unknown who died first. If the son bore the responsibility to pay the marriage contract of his wife and to pay a creditor, and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and the father’s heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died, and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, and the creditors say: The father died first and afterward the son died, resulting in the son’s inheriting his father’s property, enabling the creditors to collect payment from the property even after the son’s death, there is a dispute with regard to how to rule. Since it cannot be determined who died first, Beit Shammai say: They divide the property between them so that the father’s heirs receive half of his property and the son’s creditors receive the other half. And Beit Hillel say: The property retains its previous ownership status. Since the last known owner of the property was the father, the property is given to the father’s heirs.",
+ "If the house collapsed upon a husband and upon his wife, and it is unknown who died first, if the wife did not have any children from her husband, then the following claims arise: The husband’s heirs say: The wife died first and was inherited by her husband, and afterward the husband died, and therefore the husband’s heirs inherit both his and her property. The wife’s heirs say: The husband died first and afterward the wife died, and her heirs inherit the property that she brought with her to the marriage and the payment of her marriage contract. Beit Shammai say: They divide the property under dispute between them. And Beit Hillel say: The guaranteed property that the wife brought with her to the marriage retains its previous ownership status. The sum of the marriage contract remains in the possession of the husband’s heirs, since the marriage contract is collected from the husband’s property. Property that is brought into and taken out of the marriage with her, i.e., usufruct property that remains in the wife’s possession during her marriage, remains in the possession of the heirs of the woman’s father.",
+ "If the house collapsed on a son and upon his mother, and it is unknown who died first, the following claims arise: The mother’s paternal family claims that the son died first, and therefore they inherit from the mother, and the son’s heirs claim that the mother died first and her son inherited from her, and therefore they inherit from the son. In this case, both these Sages and those Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede that they divide the property between them. Rabbi Akiva said: In this case I concede that the property retains its previous ownership status. Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: We are already troubled by those cases where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are in disagreement. But do you come to bring upon us a disagreement with regard to the case where they agree?"
+ ],
+ [
+ "In an ordinary document, its witnesses are to sign inside it, i.e., on the written side of the paper. In a folded and tied document, its witnesses are to sign on the back of it. With regard to an ordinary document whose witnesses wrote their signatures on the back of it, and a tied document whose witnesses wrote their signatures inside of it, both of these are not valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: A tied document whose witnesses wrote their signatures inside of it is valid, because one can transform it into an ordinary document by untying it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is in accordance with regional custom.",
+ "An ordinary document is rendered valid by its having at least two witnesses, and a tied document is rendered valid by its having at least three witnesses. With regard to an ordinary document in which a single witness wrote his signature, and a tied document in which only two witnesses wrote their signatures, they are both not valid. If it is written in a document that someone owes: One hundred dinars, which are twenty sela, which is internally inconsistent since there are twenty-five sela in a hundred dinars, the holder of the document has the right to claim only twenty sela, the lower of the two amounts. If it is written that he owes: One hundred dinars, which are thirty sela, the holder of the document has the right to claim only one hundred dinars, again the lower of the two amounts. If it is written that someone owes: Silver dinars that are, and the remainder of the text, where the number of dinars should be specified, was erased, the amount must be no less than two dinars, the lowest amount to which the plural word dinars can be referring. That is what the creditor can claim. Similarly, if it is written: Silver sela that are, and the remainder of the text was erased, the amount must be no less than two sela. And if it is written: Darics that are, and the remainder of the text was erased, the amount must be no less than two darics. If it is written in the document above, in an earlier place in the document, that someone owes one hundred dinars, and below, toward the end of the document, it is written that the amount owed is two hundred dinars, or if above it is written two hundred dinars and below one hundred dinars, everything follows the bottom amount. If so, why does one write the information in the upper part of the document at all? It is a safety measure, so that if one letter is erased from the lower part of the document, thereby rendering it illegible, the information can be learned from the upper part of the document.",
+ "A scribe may write a bill of divorce for a man who requests one, even if his wife is not with him to give her consent when he presents his request, as there is no possibility that he will misuse the document. And a scribe may write a receipt for a woman upon her request, attesting to the payment of her marriage contract, even if her husband is not with her to give his consent. This is true provided that the scribe recognizes the parties requesting the document, to prevent misrepresentation. And for both documents, the husband gives the scribe his wages. A scribe may write a promissory note for a debtor who requests one, even if the creditor is not with him when he requests the document, but a scribe may not write a promissory note for a creditor who requests it unless the debtor is with him and consents. And it is the debtor who gives the scribe his wages. A scribe may write a bill of sale for a seller of a field who requests one even if the purchaser is not with him when he presents his request, but a scribe may not write a bill of sale for a purchaser who requests it unless the seller is with him and consents. And it is the purchaser who gives the scribe his wages. ",
+ "A scribe may not write documents of betrothal and documents of marriage except with the consent of both parties, the groom and the bride. And it is the groom who gives the scribe his wages. A scribe may not write contracts for sharecroppers and contractors except with the consent of both parties, i.e., the sharecropper or contractor and the one who hires him. And it is the sharecropper or contractor who gives the scribe his wages. A scribe may not write documents testifying to arbitration agreements or any other court enactment except with the consent of both parties to the litigation. And both parties give the scribe his wages. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The scribe writes two documents for the two parties, one for this one by himself, and one for that one by himself.",
+ "In the case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt and with the agreement of the creditor deposited the promissory note with a third party serving as a trustee to ensure that the creditor would not collect the full amount, and the debtor said to the trustee: If I have not given you the balance from now until such and such a day, give the creditor his promissory note, thereby enabling him to collect the full amount stated on the note, if the stipulated time arrived and the debtor did not give the balance to the trustee, Rabbi Yosei says: The trustee should give the promissory note to the creditor, in accordance with the debtor’s stipulation. Rabbi Yehuda says: The trustee should not give it, as the stipulation is void.",
+ "In the case of a creditor whose promissory note has become erased, he should produce witnesses who remember the details of the document to testify about it. And they come before the court, and they ratify his promissory note for him, stating: The promissory note of so-and-so was erased, and it stated that a loan for such and such an amount took place on such and such a date, and so-and-so and so-and-so were its witnesses. The ratification document is signed, and it may be used as a replacement for the erased document. In the case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt, Rabbi Yehuda says: The creditor should exchange the promissory note for a new one stating the current balance and tear up the first promissory note. Rabbi Yosei says: The creditor may keep the original promissory note, and he should write a receipt for the payment he has received and give it to the debtor as proof of his partial payment of the sum recorded in the old note. Rabbi Yehuda said with regard to this arrangement: It is found that this debtor must now guard his receipt against being destroyed by mice, as if he no longer has the receipt, he will have to pay the entire sum recorded in the promissory note. Rabbi Yosei said to him: This situation is fitting for him; it is better that this procedure be followed, and the strength of the claim of this creditor not be weakened.",
+ "In a case where there are two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bathhouse or an olive press as an inheritance, if the father had built these facilities for profit, i.e., to charge others for using them, the profit that accrues after the father’s death is shared equally by the two brothers. If the father had built them for himself and for the members of his household to use, the poor brother, who has little use for these amenities, cannot force the rich brother to convert the facilities to commercial use; rather, the rich brother can say to the poor brother: Go take servants for yourself, and they will bathe in the bathhouse. Or he can say: Go take olives for yourself, and come and make them into oil in the olive press. If there are two people who were living in one city, one named Yosef ben Shimon and the other also named Yosef ben Shimon, one cannot present a promissory note against the other, as the purported debtor can claim: On the contrary, it is you who owed me money; you repaid me and I returned this note to you upon payment. Nor can another, third person, present a promissory note against either of them, as each one can claim: It is not I but the other Yosef ben Shimon who owes you money. If a document is found among one’s documents stating: The promissory note against Yosef ben Shimon is repaid, and both men named Yosef ben Shimon owed this man money, the promissory notes of both of them are considered repaid, as it cannot be determined which debt was repaid and which is outstanding. What should two people with the same name in a single city do in order to conduct their business? They should triple their names by writing three generations: Yosef ben Shimon ben so-and-so. And if they have identical triple names, i.e., not only their fathers but their grandfathers had identical names, they should write an indication as to which one is referred to, such as: The short Yosef ben Shimon or the dark Yosef ben Shimon. And if they have identical indications, they should write: Yosef ben Shimon the priest, if one of them is a priest. In the case of one who says to his son before dying: One promissory note among the promissory notes in my possession is repaid, but I do not know which one, the promissory notes of all of those who owe him money are considered repaid, i.e., they are not valid for collection, as it cannot be determined which debt was repaid and which are outstanding. If there were found among his papers two promissory notes owed by one person, the one for the greater amount is considered repaid, and the one for the smaller amount is not considered repaid and can be collected; the debtor is favored in the case of an uncertainty. One who lends money to another with the assurance of a guarantor cannot collect the debt from the guarantor. But if the creditor said to the debtor: I am lending the money on the condition that I will collect the debt from whomever I wish, i.e., either the debtor or the guarantor, he can collect the debt from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the debtor has property of his own, then whether in this case, where the creditor stipulated this condition, or that case, where he did not, he cannot collect the debt from the guarantor. And so Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: If there is a guarantor for a woman for her marriage contract, from whom the woman can collect payment of her marriage contract instead of collecting it from the husband, and her husband was divorcing her, the husband must take a vow prohibiting himself from deriving any benefit from her, so that he can never remarry her. This precaution is taken lest the couple collude [kenunya] to divorce in order to collect payment of the marriage contract from this guarantor’s property, and then the husband will remarry his wife.",
+ "One who lends money to another by means of a promissory note can collect the debt from liened property that had been sold to others by the debtor after the loan was granted. One who lends money by means of witnesses, without recording the loan in a promissory note, can collect the debt only from unsold property. If one presents to a debtor a document in the handwriting of the debtor stating that he owes money to him, but without witnesses signed on the document, the creditor can collect only from unsold property. In the case of a guarantor whose commitment emerged after the signing of the promissory note, the creditor can collect the sum only from unsold property of the guarantor. The mishna relates: An incident occurred where such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael, and he said: The creditor can collect the sum from unsold property of the guarantor, but not from liened property that he has sold to others. Ben Nannas said to Rabbi Yishmael: The creditor cannot collect the sum from the guarantor at all, not from liened property that has been sold, nor from unsold property. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Why not? Ben Nannas said to him: If one was strangling someone in the marketplace, demanding repayment of a loan, and another person found him doing so and said to the attacker: Leave him alone and I will give you the money he owes, the person who intervened is exempt from paying, as the creditor did not loan the money in the first place based on his trust of the one who intervened. Rather, who is a guarantor who is obligated to repay the loan he has guaranteed? One who tells the creditor before the loan takes place: Lend money to him, and I will give you the repayment, as in that case the creditor did loan the money based on his trust of the guarantor. And Rabbi Yishmael thereupon said: One who wants to become wise should engage in the study of monetary law, as there is no greater discipline in the Torah, and it is like a flowing spring. And, he added, one who wants to engage in the study of monetary law should attend to, i.e., become a disciple of, Shimon ben Nannas."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "versions": [
+ [
+ "William Davidson Edition - English",
+ "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא בתרא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Le Talmud de J\303\251rusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr].json" "b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Le Talmud de J\303\251rusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr].json"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c2d7faac6cbf388206bd0e97f76a56616cf8cf7
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Le Talmud de J\303\251rusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr].json"
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Metzia",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002182155/NLI",
+ "versionTitle": "Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "actualLanguage": "fr",
+ "languageFamilyName": "french",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא מציעא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Deux individus tiennent un vêtement; l’un dit l’avoir trouvé, l’autre de même; ou bien l’un dit que le vêtement lui appartient entier et l’autre aussi, ils se partageront entre eux le vêtement, en jurant chacun que sa part dans le vêtement n’est pas moindre de la moitié. Si l’un dit avoir le vêtement en entier, et l’autre en réclame la moitié, le premier en prendra 3/4, en prêtant le serment que sa part dans le vêtement n’est pas moindre de 3/4, et l’autre en prendra 1/4, en prêtant serment que sa part n’est pas moindre d’un 1/4.",
+ "Deux individus montent un animal, ou l’un monte, et l’autre le guide; chacun prétend posséder l’animal; en ce cas, ils se partagent l’animal, en prêtant chacun le serment que sa part dans cet animal n’est pas moindre de la moitié. Si les deux individus avouent avoir trouvé tous deux l’objet en litige, ou si des témoins l’affirment, les individus se partageront l’objet entre eux sans serment.",
+ "Un individu monte un animal, en voyant une trouvaille dit à un autre de la lui donner; l’autre la prend et dit l’acquérir lui-même; le piéton acquiert alors l’objet. Mais s’il a d’abord donné l’objet à celui qui était à cheval, et plus tard il dit avoir ramassé l’objet pour lui même, sa parole n’a aucune valeur.",
+ "Un individu voit un objet qui n’appartient à personne, et il tombe dessus, pour faire ainsi acte de prise de possession; mais un autre vient et saisit l’objet, dans ce cas, l’objet appartient à celui qui l’a saisi. Un objet inanimé que n’a pas de maître, ou un cerf blessé, ou de petits oiseaux qui ne peuvent pas encore voler, se trouvent dans le champ d’un individu; cet individu voyant d’autres personnes qui courent pour s’approprier ces objets, les prévient en disant: “Mon champ me les a acquis”. Dans ce cas les objets lui sont acquis par son champ. Mais si c’était un cerf qui peut courir, ou des oiseaux qui peuvent voler, le champ ne peut pas les lui acquérir, et ils appartiennent à celui qui les a attrapés.",
+ "La trouvaille d’un enfant mineur, garçon ou fille, appartient au père, et celle d’un esclave cananéen, homme ou femme, appartient au maître; celle d’une femme mariée appartient au mari. Mais ce qu’un enfant majeur, fils ou fille, trouve lui appartient; ce qu’un domestique hébreu, homme ou femme, trouve, appartient au domestique; la trouvaille d’une femme divorcée, même avant de recevoir son douaire, appartient à elle.",
+ "Si un individu a trouvé un contrat de dette où le débiteur engageait ses immeubles, l’individu qui l’a trouvé ne doit pas le rendre; s’il n’y a pas d’engagement d’immeubles dans l’acte, il peut le rendre, car le créancier ne pourra pas obtenir que le tribunal lui fasse payer la dette; c’est l’opinion de R. Meir. Les autres docteurs disent qu’aux deux cas, il ne doit pas rendre l’acte, car le créancier pourrait se faire payer la dette.",
+ "Si un individu a trouvé des lettres de divorce, des lettres d’affranchissement d’esclaves, des testaments, des actes de donation entre vifs, ou des quittances, il ne doit pas les rendre à celui qui veut s’en prévaloir, car il est possible que ces actes étaient préparés pour les luis remettre, mais qu’on a changé d’avis avant de le faire.",
+ "Il faut rendre, si on les trouve, des lettres d’estimation, ou des lettres de nourriture, ou des actes du déchaussement, ou des actes de refus. Il faut aussi rendre, si on les trouve, des actes de brourin, ou un acte quelconque fait par un tribunal. Si un individu a trouvé un acte dans une boîte, glwssocomeion, ou s’il a trouvé un rouleau, ou un paquet de plusieurs actes, il doit les rendre. On appelle “paquet d’actes”, l’ensemble d’au moins 3 actes liés. R. Simon b. Gamliel dit: Si les 3 actes sont d’un seul débiteur qui a emprunté de l’argent à 3 créanciers, on doit les rendre au débiteur. Si ces 3 actes sont d’un seul créancier qui a prêté de l’argent à 3 individus, il faut les rendre au créancier. Si un individu trouve dans ses papiers un acte, et il ne se souvient pas si c’est le créancier ou le débiteur qui le lui a donné, il le gardera jusqu’à l’arrivée d’Elie (indéfiniment, jusqu’à preuve contraire). Si un individu trouve dans ses papiers l’acquit sumfwnh de son débiteur, il doit se conformer à ce qui est écrit dans la quittance."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Voici quelles trouvailles on peut garder, et voici celles qu’il faut publier. On peut garder p. ex. des produits de champs (du blé, des fruits, etc.) dispersés, des pièces de monnaies dispersées, des meules de blé dans une place publique, des ronds de figues sèches, des pains de boulanger, des poissons liés ensemble, des morceaux de viande, de la laine tondue, telle qu’elle vient des propriétaires des moutons, des touffes de lin, des langues de pourpre. C’est l’opinion de R. Meir. R. Juda dit: toutes les trouvailles présentant quelque chose d’extraordinaire doivent être publiées. Par exemple, si l’on trouve un rond de figues sèches qui renferme un tesson, ou un pain qui renferme des pièces de monnaie. R. Simon b. Eléazar dit: on n’est pas obligé de les publier, si l’on trouve des objets neufs.",
+ "Voici quels objets trouvés exigent la publication: Un vase vide, ou contenant des fruits, ou les produits du champ, une bourse vide, ou renfermant des pièces de monnaie, des tas de produits des champs ou de fruits, des tas de pièces de monnaie. Il en est de même, si l’on trouve 3 pièces de monnaie l’une sur l’autre, des gerbes dans un lieu privé, des pains cuits chez un particulier, de la laine tondue, venant d’un ouvrier, des cruches de vin ou d’huile. Toutes ces choses exigent la publication.",
+ "Si l’on trouve derrière le mur, ou derrière une haie, ou dans les sentiers des champs des pigeons liés, il ne faut pas les toucher. Si l’on trouve au fumier un vase couvert (caché), il ne faut pas le toucher. Si le vase n’est pas caché, il faut le prendre et le publier (pour que le propriétaire vienne le prendre en indiquant un indice).Si l’on trouve un objet dans une ruine ou dans un vieux mur, ou même dans un mur neuf du côté de la rue, on peut le garder. Si l’objet se trouve dans le mur du côté de la maison, il appartient au propriétaire de la maison. Si cette maison était louée, celui qui le trouve peut le garder, quand même l’objet se trouverait dans la maison.",
+ "Si on trouve un objet (sans indice) dans une boutique, on peut le garder; si on le trouve entre le bureau et le boutiquier, c’est à celui-ci. Si on le trouve chez un changeur entre lui et la table, il faut le lui rendre; mais si on le trouve en dehors de la table, on peut le garder. Si un individu achète à un autre des fruits ou des produits de champ, ou si l’autre les lui envoie, et qu’en les recevant il y trouve des pièces de monnaie, il peut les garder; mais si les pièces sont jointes (en bourse), il faut les publier, pour les rendre à celui qui pourra les désigner.",
+ "L’Ecriture dit expressément que si l’on trouve un vêtement il faut le rendre (Dt 22, 3); c’est pour nous apprendre ceci: comme un vêtement présente des signes particuliers, et appartient à quelqu’un qui le réclamera, ainsi pour tous les objets présentant des signes spéciaux et appartenant à quelqu’un qui les réclamera, on est obligé de faire la publication.",
+ "Jusqu’à quand doit-on continuer les publications? Jusqu’à ce que ses voisins l’aient appris; tel est l’avis de R. Meir. R. Juda, dit: il faut continuer les publications pendant 3 fêtes, et encore 7 jours après la 3e fête, afin que le pèlerin (qui vient à Jérusalem pour la fête et qui entend la publication) ait 3 jours pour retourner chez lui, voir s’il a perdu un objet, puis 3 jours pour revenir, et encore un jour pour publier à son tour qu’il a perdu tel objet.",
+ "Si celui qui réclame l’objet trouvé indique l’objet sans indiquer de signe, on ne le lui donne pas. Si cet individu est un imposteur, on ne lui donne pas l’objet, quand même il donnerait les signaux, comme il est dit (ibid.): jusqu’à ce que ton frère le réclame; ces mots sont à entendre ainsi: il faut scruter ton frère, afin de savoir s’il est un imposteur. (Celui qui trouve un objet, ou un animal, doit le garder jusqu’au jour fixé par la loi, où il doit le rendre au propriétaire). Si c’est un animal qui exige des dépenses pour sa nourriture, mais qui la peut gagner, on le fera travailler et on le nourrira. Si l’objet ou l’animal ne rapporte pas les frais de son entretien, on le vendra (en vue de rendre l’argent un jour au propriétaire). Selon ces mots (ibid.), tu le lui rendras; il faut examiner comment on le rendra (sans préjudice). Que fait-on de l’argent en attendant? Selon R. Tarfon, celui qui a vendu l’objet trouvé dans ces circonstances peut utiliser l’argent (comme l’argent prêté); par suite, si l’argent se perd, il en est responsable. R. aqiba dit: il ne doit pas l’utiliser (comme un dépôt); et par suite, s’il perd l’argent, il n’en est pas responsable.",
+ "Si un individu a trouvé des livres, il doit les lire une fois par mois. S’il ne sait pas les lire, il doit au moins les dérouler. Si c’est un ouvrage qu’il n’a pas encore lu, il ne doit pas le lire pour la première fois. Il ne doit pas y lire avec une autre personne. S’il a trouvé un vêtement, il doit le secouer une fois par mois, et l’étendre pour lui donner de l’air, mais non pas pour sa convenance (ou pour en faire étalage). S’il a trouvé des vases d’argent ou de cuivre, il les utilisera pour leur objet, mais il ne doit pas en abuser au point de diminuer leur valeur par le frottement. S’il a trouvé des vases d’or, ou de verre, il ne doit pas les toucher, quand même celui qui les a perdus tarderait à venir jusqu’à l’arrivée d’Elie. S’il a trouvé un sac, un panier, ou un autre objet vil, qu’un homme de sa position n’a pas l’habitude de porter, il n’est pas obligé de la ramasser.",
+ "Dans quel cas est-on obligé de s’occuper des objets trouvés? Si l’on trouve un âne ou une vache qui paissent en route, on ne doit pas les considérer comme des objets perdus dont il faudrait s’occuper pour les remettre au propriétaire. Si l’on rencontre un âne avec son harnais renversé, ou une vache qui court dans les vignes, il faut les considérer comme des objets perdus qu’on doit remettre au propriétaire. Si l’on ramène la vache et qu’elle s’échappe, il faut la ramener pour la 2e fois; si elle s’échappe de nouveau, on la ramènera pour la 3e fois, et ainsi de suite jusqu’à 4 ou 5 fois, comme il est dit (Dt 22, 1): tu le ramèneras, expression dite avec redondance. Si l’individu qui s’occupe à ramasser un objet perdu par un autre est dérangé par cette occupation dans ses travaux, ce qui lui fait perdre un selà (1/2 sicle), qu’il aurait gagné s’il n’avait pas été dérangé, il ne peut pas exiger du propriétaire de l’objet perdu de lui donner un selà; mais celui-ci paiera le travail, comme on paie à un ouvrier. Si l’individu ne veut pas se contenter de ce salaire, et qu’il préfère gagner un selà entier en continuant ses propres travaux; il a le droit de faire ses conditions. Mais s‘il n’y a pas de juges dans cet endroit, il a le droit de préférer ses propres travaux, et il n’est pas obligé de perdre son argent, en abandonnant son travail pour s’occuper de l’objet d’un autre individu.",
+ "Si un individu trouve une vache dans une étable, il n’est pas obligé de s’en occuper; s’il la trouve au dehors, il est tenu de la remettre à son propriétaire. S’il est un cohen et que la vache se trouve dans un cimetière, il n’y entrera pas. Si son père lui ordonne d’entrer au cimetière où il se rendra impur, ou si la vache se trouve ailleurs et le père de l’individu lui défend de la prendre pour la remettre à son propriétaire, il n’obéira pas. Si un individu voit un homme ou un animal accablé sous son fardeau, il est obligé de l’aider dans le déchargement ou dans le chargement. S’il a déjà aidé cet homme à le décharger ou charger plusieurs fois, il est toujours tenu de le faire, fût-ce 4 ou 5 fois, en raison de l’expression redondante du texte (Ex 23, 5): aide-lui à le décharger. Si cet homme dit à l’individu: “puisque la loi t’oblige à t’occuper du déchargement, va seul le faire, si tu veux, et je me reposerai”, l’individu ne sera pas obligé de le faire seul. Mais si cet homme est malade ou vieux, son prochain sera tenu d’entreprendre seul la besogne. La loi oblige d’aider son prochain à décharger le fardeau; mais elle n’oblige pas de l’aider à charger (sans se faire payer). R. Simon dit: la loi oblige aussi d’aider à charger (sans rémunération). R. Yossé le Galiléen dit: on n’est pas obligé d’aider son prochain, qui a commis la faute de charger l’animal d’un fardeau trop lourd; car il est dit (ibid.): sous sa charge; il faut que ce soit une charge supportable.",
+ "Si un individu a perdu un objet et que son père en ait perdu un aussi, ne pouvant pas s’occuper des deux objets à la fois, il peut s’occuper d’abord du sien. Si un disciple a perdu un objet et que son maître en ait perdu aussi un, le disciple peut s’occuper d’abord du sien. Si son père a perdu un objet et que son maître en ait perdu un aussi, ne pouvait pas s’occuper des deux objets à la fois, il doit s’occuper d’abord de celui de son maître; car son père lui a donné des biens terrestres, mais son maître l’a rendu digne du monde futur. Mais si son père est un homme instruit, il doit s’occuper d’abord de l’objet de son père. Si son père et son maître portent chacun un fardeau, il doit d’abord décharger celui de son maître, puis celui de son père. Si son père et son maître sont en prison (chez les païens), il doit d’abord racheter son maître, et plus il rachètera son père; mais si son père est un homme instruit, il rachètera d’abord son père, puis son maître."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Si un individu donne à un autre en dépôt un animal ou des objets inanimés, et que ce dépôt ait été volé ou perdu par un accident rare chez le gardien, si le gardien ne voulant pas prêter serment a payé au propriétaire la valeur du dépôt, et si l’on trouve le voleur, qui est condamné, suivant le cas, à l’amende du double, ou du quadruple ou au quintuple, dans ce cas c’est au gardien que le voleur paye l’amende. Si, au contraire, le gardien a prêté serment que le voleur pour être quitte envers le propriétaire du dépôt, le voleur paye l’amende au propriétaire.",
+ "Un individu a loué une vache et il l’a prêtée ensuite à un autre individu; la vache est morte de sa mort naturelle chez cet emprunteur (accident qu’on ne pouvait éviter). Dans ce cas, celui qui a volé la vache prêtera serment que la vache est morte naturellement, et il sera acquitté envers le propriétaire; puis l’emprunteur paiera sa valeur au premier. Mais R. Yossé dit: celui-ci ne peut pas profiter de la vache qui ne lui appartient pas; elle doit être payée au propriétaire.",
+ "Si un individu s’adressant à la fois à deux personnes leur dit: “J’ai enlevé à l’un de vous 100 zouz, mais je ne sais pas à qui”; ou il leur dit: “Le père de l’un de vous m’a remis en dépôt 100 zouz, et je ne sais pas le père de qui me les a donnés”; en ces cas, l’individu donnera à chaque personne 100 zouz, car il a fait spontanément l’aveu (pour être consciencieux en réparant ses torts).",
+ "Deux individus ont donné de l’argent en dépôt à un gardien; l’un a donné 100 zouz et l’autre 200; plus tard, chacun d’eux réclame 200 zouz. Le dépositaire donnera à chacun d’eux 100 zouz, et les derniers 100 zouz resteront jusqu’à l’arrivée d’Elie. R. Yossé dit: Si l’on agissait ainsi, le menteur n’y perdrait rien, et il ne se déciderait jamais à avouer la vérité; il faut donc ne donner rien à aucun d’eux, afin que le menteur se décide à avouer la vérité pour obtenir ses 100 zouz.",
+ "Il en est de même de 2 vases mis en dépôt par 2 individus, dont l’un a donné un vase de 100 zouz, et l’autre en a donné un plus grand qui vaut mille zouz. Si plus tard, chacun d’eux réclame le grand vase, les autres docteurs disent qu’on donne le petit à l’un d’eux, et on vend le grand pour en donner une valeur de 100 zouz à l’autre, et l’on garde le reste. R. Yossé dit: alors aussi on ne donnera rien à aucun d’eux, afin que le menteur se décide enfin à avouer la vérité pour avoir sa part.",
+ "Si un individu a mis en dépôt des fruits (ou des produits de champs) chez autrui, quoique ces objets se gâtent, le gardien ne doit pas y toucher (pour les vendre avant qu’ils ne soient perdus). R. Simon b. Gamliel dit: Le gardien les vendra devant le tribunal, car il rend service au propriétaire, comme s’il lui vendait un objet perdu.",
+ "Si un individu donne en dépôt à un autre des fruits (ou des produits des champs, que le gardien aura mêlés avec ses propres produits), il ne rendra pas au propriétaire la quantité qu’il a reçue; il retranchera de chaque produit la perte qu’il subit selon sa nature. Pour le froment et le riz, on retranchera 9 demi-cab par chaque kour: pour l’orge et le cumin, 9 cab; pour l’épeautre le lin, 3 saah, par kour. Tout se calcule selon la mesure et le temps. R. Yohanan b. Nouri dit: les souris mangent la même quantité d’un kour ou de 2 et 3; la quantité à retrancher ne sera donc que sur un seul kour. R. Juda dit: si le dépôt est considérable, le gardien ne doit rien retrancher, car la perte faite par les souris est compensée par le gonflement que subissent les produits.",
+ "Si un individu donne en dépôt du vin (que le gardien mêle ensuite au sien), on en retranchera 1/6; c’est la perte que le vin subit. R. Juda dit: on en retranchera 1/5. S’il s’agit d’un dépôt d’huile, on retranchera 3 lougs 0/0; la lie fait 1 loug 1/2, et un loug 1/2 est absorbé par les cruches; de l’huile pure, on ne retranche rien pour la lie. Si les cruches sont vieilles, on ne retranche rien pour l’absorption (les vieilles cruches n’absorbent plus rien). R. Juda dit: le vendeur a le même droit que le gardien d’un dépôt, en ce sens que si un individu vend à un autre de l’huile pure de ses tonneaux, qu’il doit donner peu à peu selon les besoins de l’acheteur, le vendeur lui retranchera 1 loug 1/2 0/0 de lie",
+ "Un individu dépose un tonneau, sans préciser la place où le gardien doit mettre ce tonneau; puis le gardien l’ayant pris et déplacé, le tonneau se brise. Si cette rupture a lieu entre les mains du gardien, on l’oblige à payer le dommage, lorsqu’il a déplacé le tonneau pour son propre usage; mais il sera acquitté s’il l’a déplacé pour le mieux garder. Si le tonneau s’est brisé après avoir été remis en place, le gardien est quitte, quand même le déplacement aurait eu lieu dans un but personnel. Si le propriétaire du tonneau a précisé la place où le gardien devait le mettre, et celui-ci l’a déplacé puis la fracture a eu lieu, le gardien doit toujours payer le dommage, lorsqu’il l’a déplacé pour son propre usage, quand même le tonneau ne serait brisé qu’après avoir été remis en place.",
+ "Un individu donne à autrui de l’argent en dépôt, le dépositaire l’enveloppe dans son manteau pour le porter sur son dos, ou il le donne à son enfant mineur qu’il laisse dans la maison, sans l’enfermer d’une façon suffisante. En ce cas, le gardien est responsable de la perte de l’argent; car il ne l’a pas gardé selon l’usage. S’il l’a gardé comme l’usage l’exige, il est acquitté.",
+ "Si un individu donne des Maot en dépôt à un changeur, en lui remettant ces pièces liées dans un paquet, le changeur ne peut pas en faire usage; aussi ce dernier n’est pas responsable si l’argent se perd. Si l’argent n’était pas lié, le changeur peut en faire usage, et il est responsable de la perte du dépôt. Si l’individu a donné l’argent en dépôt à un propriétaire (non changeur), quand même l’argent n’a pas été lié en paquet, le dépositaire ne peut pas en user. Si le dépositaire est un boutiquier il sera assimilé à un homme ordinaire. Tel est l’avis de R. Meir. Selon R. Juda, le boutiquier est assimilé au changeur.",
+ "Si le gardien met la main sur le dépôt, d’après l’école de Shammaï, il sera puni, soit que le dépôt diminue de valeur après usage, soit qu’il augmente de valeur. Les Hillélites disent: le gardien payera la valeur du dépôt au moment de l’enlèvement. R. aqiba dit: il payera la valeur au moment de la réclamation. Si le gardien a voulu mettre la main sur le dépôt, il est condamné, d’après l’école de Shammaï (comme s’il l’avait déjà fait); d’après l’école de Hillel, il n’est condamné qu’après le fait accompli. Ainsi, le gardien ayant reçu en dépôt un tonneau de vin, en a pris un quart de log, puis le tonneau a été brisé par un accident; le gardien ne paiera que le quart qu’il a pris. Mais s’il a soulevé le tonneau pour en prendre un quart de mesure, et le tonneau s’est brisé plus tard par accident, il est responsable de l’accident, et il paiera pour le dépôt entier."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Quand on achète un meuble pour de l’argent, l’achat devient valable si l’acheteur fait l’acte d’attirer le meuble, mais non parce que le vendeur a pris l’argent. Si un individu donne à un autre des espèces en or en échange de l’argent, la prise de l’or rend l’achat valable, mais non pas la prise de l’argent; dans l’échange des monnaies de cuivre avec celles d’argent, la prise des pièces de cuivre rend l’échange valable, non celle des pièces d’argent. Si on échange des pièces de monnaie mauvaises (qui n’ont plus cours) avec des bonnes, la prise des mauvaises rend l’échange valable, mais non celle des bonnes. Si on échange une pièce de monnaie frappée (marquée) contre une frustre ashmon, la prise de la dernière pièce rend l’échange valable, non celle de la première. Enfin, si on achète du mobilier avec de l’argent, la prise de la marchandise rend la vente valable, non celle de l’argent. En général, en échangeant une marchandise (mobilière) avec une autre, la prise de l’une d’elles rend l’échange valable.",
+ "Si l’acheteur a pris la marchandise, quoiqu’il n’ait pas encore donné l’argent, la vente est valable sans retour. Si le vendeur a touché l’argent, mais l’acheteur n’a pas pris la marchandise, la vente n’est pas valable, et tous les deux peuvent se rétracter; mais le tribunal inflige à celui qui se rétracte un blâme public, en disant que Celui qui a puni la génération du déluge et la génération de la confusion des langues (Gn 11, 7) punira celui qui ne tient pas sa parole. R. Simon dit: celui qui a l’argent en main a la plus grande faculté.",
+ "Si le prix de la marchandise monte à un selà, qui vaut 24 maoth, on peut réclamer si l’on s’est trompé de 4 maoth, ou 1/6 du prix de la marchandise. Combien de temps a-t-on pour une telle réclamation? Le temps de montrer la marchandise à un marchand qui s’y connaît, ou à un parent. R. Tarfon a décidé dans la ville de Lod, qu’on ne peut réclamer que si, sur le prix d’un selà, on s’est trompé de 8 maoth ou 1/3 du prix. Les négociants de Lod en étaient contents; mais R. Tarfon leur dit ensuite qu’on peut réclamer toute la journée. Alors ils lui dirent: “que R. Tarfon nous laisse comme nous étions auparavant, sous l’ancienne loi”, et l’on est revenu aux idées des autres docteurs.",
+ "L’acheteur comme le vendeur peut réclamer s’il se trouve lésé dans le prix. Les dispositions sur l’erreur du prix s’appliquent soit au marchand, soit à celui qui ne l’est pas; R. Juda dit qu’elles ne s’appliquent pas à un marchand. La partie lésée peut, à volonté, annuler la vente par la restitution du montant, ou réclamer le dédommagement.",
+ "Combien de selà peut-il perdre par le frottement, sans que celui qui le reçoit pour une bonne pièce soit fondé à réclamer? R. Meir dit: le selà peut avoir perdu la valeur de 4 As dont 1 par dinar (ou 1/24 de la valeur d’une bonne pièce), sans que la partie lésée puisse réclamer. R. Juda dit: il peut perdre 4 pondion, à raison d’un pondion par dinar (= 1/12 de selà). R. Simon dit: il peut perdre 8 pondion à raison de 2 pond. par dinar (= 1/6 de selà).",
+ "Jusqu’à quand celui qui a reçu une mauvaise pièce peut-il la rendre? Dans les grandes villes (où il y a un changeur), on lui accorde le temps de montrer la pièce au changeur; dans les villages (où il n’y a pas de changeur), on lui accorde jusqu’au premier vendredi. Cependant, si celui qui lui a donné cette pièce la reconnaît, il doit la recevoir, même après une année; s’il ne la reçoit pas après écoulement du temps accordé à la partie lésée, la partie lésée peut en être mécontente, mais elle ne peut pas forcer l’autre de la reprendre. On peut sans crainte l’utiliser pour l’échange de la 2e dîme; car la refuser serait un acte de mauvaise volonté.",
+ "La réclamation pour la perte est fondée à raison de 4 pièces d’argent (par selà); il y a lieu à procès pour 2 pièces, et l’aveu se fait pour une différence infime d’une prouta. En 5 cas, cette dernière valeur est admise comme minimum: pour l’aveu, l’argent donné à une femme pour valider le mariage, la jouissance du sacré, la trouvaille d’un objet perdu; il faut alors faire les publications nécessaires pour pouvoir le rendre au propriétaire, enfin si l’on a volé à son prochain la valeur d’une prouta, qu’on lui a niée par serment (puis avouée), on devra la rapporter au propriétaire fût-ce en Médie.",
+ "Cinq individus doivent ajouter un cinquième en sus du principal: 1° celui qui mange de l’oblation, ou l’oblation de la dîme (1/100 du blé), ou le prélèvement sur les produits douteux (demaï), ou la parcelle sacerdotale de pâte (Halla), ou les prémices offertes au cohen; 2° celui qui rachète le plant de vigne de la 4e année, ou sa seconde dîme et la consomme lui-même; 3° celui qui rachète (reprend) ce qu’il a consacré; 4° celui qui use pour la valeur d’une prouta de ce qui est consacré; 5° celui qui vole à son prochain la valeur d’une prouta, qu’il jure ensuite ne pas avoir (puis fait l’aveu du vol), devra payer 1/5 outre le capital.",
+ "Les disposition concernant l’erreur dans le prix des achats ne sont point applicables aux esclaves, aux actes, aux immeubles, ni aux consécrations. Les amendes du double ou du quadruple, ou du quintuple, ne sont pas non plus applicables à toutes ces choses. Il y a des cas où un gardien non salarié doit prêter serment que le dépôt n’a pas été perdu par sa faute, et où le gardien salarié doit payer pour la perte du dépôt déterminé par un accident rare; mais le premier n’est pas obligé de prêter ce serment, ni le dernier de payer s’il s’agit d’une de ces choses. R. Simon dit: pour les saintetés entraînant la responsabilité, on tient compte de l’erreur, non si l’on est irresponsable. R. Juda dit: l’acheteur d’un Pentateuque, ou d’une quadrupède domestique, ou d’une perle, ne peut pas réclamer s’il a payer trop cher; mais les autres docteurs rejettent cette opinion.",
+ "Comme il est défendu de tromper quelqu’un dans les achats, il est aussi défendu de tromper quelqu'un en paroles ou de lui faire du chagrin. Ainsi il est défendu de demander à quelqu’un le prix d’un objet (pour lui faire croire qu’on veut l’acheter), quand on ne veut pas l’acheter. Si l’on rencontre un homme repentant, il ne faut pas lui rappeler les anciens péchés; si on rencontre le fils d’un prosélyte, il est défendu de lui rappeler la conduite de ses parents païens, car il est dit (Ex 22, 20): tu ne fouleras pas l’étranger et ne l’opprimeras pas, car vous avez été des étrangers en Egypte.",
+ "Quand on vend à quelqu’un les produits d’un champ, il ne faut pas mêler ceux d’un autre champ, quoique les uns et les autres soient nouveaux; et à plus forte raison, si l’on vend des produits anciens, il ne faut pas y mêler les nouveaux (moins bons). En vérité, on l’a dit: si l’on vend à quelqu’un du vin mou, on peut y mêler du vin dur, car le vin se conserve mieux (ou s’améliore) par le mélange. Quand on vend le vin d’un tonneau, on peut le donner avec la lie; mais il ne faut pas y mêler la lie d’un autre tonneau. Un individu qui a son vin mêlé avec de l’eau ne peut pas le vendre dans la boutique (aux particuliers) sans les avertir que le vin est mêlé; on ne doit pas le vendre à un marchand, même en l’avertissant du mélange, car celui-ci trompera ces acheteurs, en le leur donnant pour du vin pur. Dans les endroits où il est d’usage de mettre de l’eau dans le vin, on peut le faire (là, personne n’est trompé).",
+ "Le marchand peut vendre les produits de 5 (divers) champs mêlés entre eux, et les vins de 5 (divers) pressoirs. Mais il ne doit pas tromper les acheteurs, en leur faisant croire que les marchandises viennent de tel champ, quand il y mêle les produits d’un autre. R. Juda dit: un boutiquier ne doit pas distribuer les grains rôtis ou des noix aux enfants qui viennent faire des achats, car il les habitue ainsi à venir chez lui (c’est faire du tort aux autres boutiquiers); les autres docteurs permettent de le faire. Il ne doit pas baisser le prix des marchandises (car il fait du tort à ceux qui vendent au prix courant). Les autres disent, au contraire: il faut le remercier, s’il baisse le prix. Il ne doit pas trier les poix cassés (de façon à les faire valoir indûment); tel est l’avis d’Aba-Saül. Selon les autres sages, c’est permis. Ceux-ci pourtant reconnaissent que l’on ne doit pas placer le choix seul au-dessus, c’est un trompe-l’œil, pas plus que l’on ne doit colorer (décorer, vernir) ni un homme esclave à vendre, ni un animal, ni des vases."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Qu’est-ce que l’usure (défendue par la loi mosaïque), et qu’est-ce que l’intérêt défendu seulement par la loi rabbinique? L’usure défendue par la loi mosaïque est celle des prêts; p. ex. si l’on prête à une personne une selà (= 4 dinars), pour qu’elle rende plus tard cinq dinars, ou si l’on prête deux saah (mesures) de froment à une personne pour qu’elle en rende trois. L’intérêt défendu seulement par la loi rabbinique est celui des achats de fruits (ou d’autres objets); p. ex. un citadin passe au marché avec un paysan, pour que celui-ci lui fournisse du froment à raison de 25 dinars d’argent le kour (mesure de 30 saah), prix courant de la récole; plus tard, le prix s’est élevé à 30 dinars d’argent. Le citadin vient réclamer son froment pour le vendre et acheter du vin; mais le paysan répond “Je garde le froment à raison de 30 dinars d’argent le kour, et je te fournirai du vin quand tu en auras besoin”, bien qu’en ce moment le paysan n’ait pas de vin (c’est défendu).",
+ "Le créancier ne doit pas demeurer gratis dans la propriété du débiteur, et il ne doit pas même la louer meilleur marché qu’un autre locataire; car cela serait de l’usure. Quand on loue quelque chose, on peut augmenter le loyer (si l’on ne paie pas d’avance), mais on ne peut pas augmenter le prix de la vente (en un tel cas). Il est permis de louer une propriété à un individu, en lui disant: “si tu paies pour l’année d’avance, tu ne donneras pas 10 selaïm; si tu paies au mois, tu donnera un selà par mois” (ou par an 12 selaïm). Mais il est défendu de vendre un champ à un individu en lui disant: “si tu paies d’avance, tu ne donneras que mille zouz; mais si tu ne paies qu’après ta récolte, tu donneras 1200 zouz”.",
+ "Un individu vend son champ à un autre qui lui donne une partie du prix convenu; et le vendeur dit à l’acheteur: “tu peux apporter le reste quand tu voudras, et alors le champ t’appartiendra” dans ce cas, il fait un acte défendu. Si un individu prête de l’argent à un autre sur son champ, et lui dit: “si tu ne me payes pas la dette en 3 ans d’ici, le champ m’appartiendra”, alors le champ appartient, en effet, au créancier, si l’autre ne paie pas. Ainsi agit Baithos, fils de Zonin, avec le consentement des docteurs.",
+ "Il est défendu de donner des marchandises à un boutiquier pour qu’il les vende et en partage les bénéfices (avec le déposant). Il est défendu (par le même motif) de prêter à un marchand de l’argent, pour que celui-ci achète des marchandises et partage le bénéfice avec le créancier, à moins que celui-ci ne paie au marchand pour sa part de travail, comme on paie un ouvrier. De même, il est défendu de donner à crédit des œufs à un individu qui a une poule, pour qu’il les fasse couvert, et que prêteur et débiteur se partagent le bénéfice. Il en est de même, si un individu donne à un éleveur des veaux et des poulains à nourrir, fixant leur valeur en argent (que l’éleveur sera obligé de payer en cas de perte ou de mort des animaux), et sous la condition qu’ils se partageront le bénéfice. Ce commerce n’est permis que si celui qui donne les œufs ou les veaux paie à l’autre la peine prise pour sa moitié, et qu’il lui paie aussi (la moitié des dépenses) pour nourrir les petits poussins, ou les veaux, ou les poulains. Mais il est permis de donner des veaux ou des poulains à un individu, pour que celui-ci les élève jusqu’au tiers du développement.",
+ "On peut donner à l’éleveur une vache, un âne, ou tout animal qui rapporte ce qu’il mange, en fixant la valeur de l’animal au moment de la lui donner, pour partager avec lui plus tard le bénéfice. Si l’animal a des petits chez l’éleveur, on les partage de suite après leur naissance, dans les endroits où c’est l’usage. Mais dans les endroits où il est d’usage d’élever les petits, l’éleveur doit élever même les petits qui ne lui appartiennent pas. R. Simon b. Gamliel dit: on peut donner à l’éleveur le veau avec sa mère, ou le poulain avec la jument; on peut avancer au fermier de l’argent pour améliorer le champ et se faire payer plus cher la ferme; tout cela n’est pas de l’usure.",
+ "L’éleveur ne doit pas recevoir du petit bétail d’un israélite, à la condition de subir seul les dommages et les pertes, et de partager le bénéfice, car c’est de l’usure. Mais l’éleveur peut le recevoir d’un païen. On peut donner l’intérêt à un créancier païen, et on peut aussi lui prêter à intérêt. Il en est de même d’un prosélyte palestinien. On peut prêter à intérêt l’argent du païen à un israélite, en le faisant sur la demande du païen, non à l’inverse.",
+ "Celui qui veut passer un marché avec un paysan fournisseur, en lui donnant l’argent dans la saison du bon marché (en automne, après la récolte), pour que celui-ci lui fournisse la marchandise pendant toute l’année au bas prix de cette saison, ne doit pas le conclure avant que le prix de la saison ne soit déjà fixé (si le paysan n’a pas en ce moment la marchandise demandée). Si ce prix est fixé, il peut passer le marché même avec un paysan qui ne possède pas en ce moment la marchandise qu’on lui demande, car il peut l’acheter en ce moment chez un autre au prix de la saison. Si ce paysan a récolté la marchandise demandée avant les autres (et passe ce marché quand le prix de la saison n’est pas encore fixé), il peut passer ce marché s’il a des gerbes en tas, ou des raisins ou des olives dans le pressoir; le potier peut passer le marché pour fournir les pots, s’il possède les moules, ou bien pour fournir la chaux, quand il l’a mise dans la fournaise. On peut conclure le marché pour fournir du fumier toute l’année (au bas prix de la saison). R. Yossé dit: on ne peut pas le faire si le fournisseur ne possède pas du fumier à ce moment; les autres docteurs le permettent. On peut convenir avec le fournisseur qui s’engage pour toute l’année, que si la marchandise baisse de prix, on ne le payera que selon la valeur diminuée. R. Juda dit: on n’a pas besoin d’une convention pour cela; car si le prix baisse, l’acquéreur peut toujours dire au fournisseur: “donne-moi à ce prix, ou rends-moi mon argent”.",
+ "Celui qui afferme ses champs peut prêter à ses fermiers une mesure de blé pour qu’ils la lui rendent plus tard (sans craindre que la mesure soit plus chère au moment du payement et qu’il y ait usure), s’ils l’empruntent pour semer, non pour leur consommation. Quand R. Gamliel prêtait à ses fermiers une mesure de blé, fût-ce pour semer, il en estimait la valeur au jour de l’emprunt et celle au jour du payement; si le prix avait baissé ou augmenté du premier jour au dernier, il se faisait payer selon le prix le plus bas. Mais R. Gamliel était trop scrupuleux; le loi ne l’exige pas.",
+ "Il ne faut pas emprunter un kour de blé pour rendre la même mesure après la récolte; mais on peut dire à quelqu’un: prête-moi du blé et je te le rendrai quand j’aurai trouvé la clef, ou quand mon fils viendra. Hillel le défend (même quand le débiteur a du blé). Hillel disait aussi: une femme ne doit pas prêter un pain à sa voisine pour que celle-ci lui rende le même pain, à moins d’en fixer le prix; autrement, il est à craindre que le prix de la substance n’augmente, il y aurait usure.",
+ "Un homme peut dire à un autre: “Va sarcler mon champ; je sarclerai (un autre jour) le tien; va creuser chez moi, je creuserai chez toi”; mais on ne peut pas dire: “Va sarcler dans mon champ et je creuserai dans le tien, ou: va creuser chez moi et je sarclerai chez toi”. Quant aux jours du travail, on peut considérer tous les jours comme se ressemblant l’un à l’autre, et de même tous les jours de pluie; mais on ne peut pas dire à autrui: “Va labourer dans mon champ un jour sec, et je labourerai dans le tien en un jour de pluie”.. R. Gamliel dit: il y a l’usure prématurée et l’usure tardive, par exemple: un homme a en vue d’emprunter quelque chose à un individu, et il lui fait un envoi d’avance, en lui disant: “c’est pour que tu me prêtes de l’argent”; c’est là l’usure prématurée. Un homme a emprunté de l’argent chez un individu, et il l’a payé; puis il lui fait un envoi, en lui disant: “c’est pour l’argent que tu m’as laissé quelques temps”; c’est là l’usure tardive. R. Simon dit: Il y a aussi usure en paroles; ainsi, il faut renoncer à son créancier (pour lui faire plaisir) l’arrivée de quelqu’un.",
+ "Voici ceux qui transgressent la défense biblique d’usure: le créancier, le débiteur, le garant et les témoins (qui signent l’acte où le débiteur s’engage à donner l’usure). Les autres docteurs ajoutent: l’écrivain. Ils transgressent 5 défenses: “tu ne donneras pas ton argent à usure” (Lv 15, 37); “tu ne prendras pas d’usure (ibid. 36); “tu ne seras pas comme un exacteur” (Ex 22, 24); “vous ne lui imposerez pas d’usure” (ibid.); enfin “tu ne mettras rien devant l’aveugle qui puisse le faire tomber, tu craindras ton Dieu, je suis l’Eternel” (Lv 19, 14)."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Si un individu loue des ouvriers, et l’un trompe l’autre, celui qui a été trompé peut être mécontent, mais il ne peut rien réclamer. Si un individu loue un ânier ou un voiturier, pour que celui-ci lui apporte des instruments de musique en vue d’une noce ou d’un enterrement, ou bien s’il loue un ouvrier pour tirer le lin de l’endroit où il trempe, ou pour faire un autre travail dont l’ajournement peut causer une perte, et si l’ânier ou l’ouvrier ne peut pas remplir son engagement, lorsqu’il n’y pas de remplaçant, on peut louer un autre à ses frais, ou le tromper.",
+ "Si on loue des ouvriers, et que ceux-ci ne veulent plus travailler (après avoir commencé), l’ouvrier doit subir la perte qui en résulte. Si le patron renvoie l’ouvrier au milieu du travail, il en subira l’inconvénient. Ceux qui changent les conditions convenues (sans y avoir droit) en subissent les inconvénients, et tous ceux qui ne sont pas fidèles à leur parole en subissent l’inconvénient.",
+ "Si un individu loue un âne pour le conduire sur une montagne et le conduit dans une plaine, ou s’il le loue pour la plaine et il le conduit sur la montagne, il doit payer la valeur de l’âne qui en meurt, quoique la distance parcourue par l’âne, par exemple: dix milles, fut celle qu’il devait parcourir d’après la convention. Un individu loue un âne pour le conduire sur une montagne, et il le conduit dans une plaine ou dans une vallée, si l’âne glisse et tombe, l’individu est acquitté; mais si l’âne meurt par la chaleur, l’individu doit payer le dommage. Un individu loue un âne pour le conduire dans la plaine et il le conduit sur une montagne; si l’animal glisse et tombe, l’individu doit payer le dommage; mais si l’âne meurt par la chaleur, l’individu est acquitté. Si l’âne s’est échauffé par la montée, l’individu doit payer le dommage. Si un individu loue un âne, et si cet âne a attrapé une maladie (dans les yeux ou dans les pattes), ou si le gouvernement l’a enlevé pour le service public, aggareia, le propriétaire n’est pas obligé de donner un autre âne; mais si l’âne est mort, ou s’il s’est cassé une patte, le propriétaire doit donner au locataire un autre âne pour le temps convenu entre eux.",
+ "Si un individu a loué une vache (avec les instruments du labourage) pour labourer sur une montage, et il laboure dans une plaine, il n’est pas obligé de payer le dommage, si les instruments se brisent; mais s’il a loué pour labourer dans la plaine et il laboure sur une montage, il doit payer le dommage, si le coin se brise. S’il a loué pour battre des légumes, et il a battu du blé, il n’est pas obligé de payer le dommage; mais s’il a loué pour battre du blé et il bat des légumes, il doit payer le dommage, car les légumes sont glissants.",
+ "Si l’individu qui avait loué un âne pour un chargement de blé, l’a chargé d’orge (en plus grande quantité), il doit payer le dommage, si l’âne meurt. Si l’individu qui avait loué un âne pour le chargement de produits des champs, l’a chargé de paille (en plus grande quantité), il doit payer le dommage, si l’âne meurt; car le volume du fardeau est aussi fatigant que le poids. Si l’ayant loué pour le chargement d’une mesure de blé, il l’a chargé d’une d’orge, il est acquitté (si l’animal meurt); mais s’il a ajouté à la mesure, il est condamné à payer le dommage. Combien faut-il avoir ajouté à la mesure pour être condamné à payer le dommage, si l’animal meurt? Somkos dit au nom de R. Meir: il est condamné à payer le dommage, s’il a ajouté un saah (6 cabs) pour un chameau, et 3 cabs pour un âne.",
+ "Tous les ouvriers qui reçoivent les matériaux chez eux pour confectionner un objet ont à l’égard de ces matériaux la responsabilité d’un gardien salarié. Mais tous ces individus, après avoir fini le travail et avoir dit au patron qu’il peut le venir prendre et les payer ensuite, n’ont plus que la responsabilité d’un gardien non salarié. Si un individu dit à un autre: “garde-moi mes objets, et je garderai les tiens”, ils ont chacun la responsabilité d’un gardien salarié; mais s’il lui a dit: “garde mes objets et mets devant moi les tiens”, il n’a que la responsabilité d’un gardien non salarié.",
+ "Si un individu prête à un autre de l’argent sur gage, il a la responsabilité du gage comme un gardien salarié. R. Juda dit: s’il a prêté de l’argent, il n’a que la responsabilité d’un gardien sans salaire; s’il a prêté des fruits, il est responsable d’un gage comme un gardien salarié. Abba Saül dit: Le créancier d’un pauvre peut louer certains gages à d’autres personnes plusieurs fois, pour diminuer peu à peu la dette; car il agit alors envers le pauvre débiteur, comme un homme qui lui rend un objet perdu.",
+ "Si un individu porte un tonneau (déposé chez lui) d’un endroit à un autre, et que ce tonneau se brise, qu’il soit gardien salarié ou non, il prêtera serment qu’il n’a pas à se reprocher une négligence, et il sera acquitté. R. Eliézer dit: j’ai aussi appris que le gardien non salarié et le gardien salarié doivent prêter serment et être acquittés; mais je suis étonné que tous les deux puissent être acquittés par un serment."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Si un individu loue des ouvriers, et qu’il leur dise de venir très tôt au travail, ou de s’en aller très tard, il ne peut pas les y forcer plus que ne l’exige l’usage du pays. Si l’usage prescrit de donner aux ouvriers à manger, ou même de leur donner un bon repas, il le faut. Dans toute chose, il faut suivre l’usage. R. Yohanan b. Mathia dit à son fils: Va nous louer des ouvriers. Son fils alla les louer et s’engagea à leur donner la nourriture. Quand il le raconta à son père, celui-ci lui dit: -Si tu leur donnais un repas comme ceux du roi Salomon dans sa grandeur, tu n’aurais pas encore satisfait complètement à ton devoir, car ces ouvriers sont les enfants d’Abraham, d’Isaac et de Jacob. Va donc leur dire, avant qu’ils commencent le travail, que tu ne t’engages qu’à leur donner du pain et des légumes. R. Simon b. Gamliel dit: c’était inutile, car tout dépend de l’usage du pays.",
+ "Voici les ouvriers qui peuvent manger, d’après la loi mosaïque (Dt 23), les fruits du terrain où ils travaillent: Celui qui travaille dans les fruits adhérents à la terre, quand on est à la fin de la récolte, ou aux fruits détachés avant la récolte, pourvu que les ouvriers travaillent dans les choses qui viennent de la terre. Voici ceux qui n’est pas le droit de manger les fruits: Celui qui travaille dans les fruits adhérents à la terre, quand la récolte n’est pas finie; celui qui travaille dans les fruits détachés de la terre, bien qu’après la récolte; enfin celui qui travaille dans les choses qui ne poussent pas dans la terre.",
+ "Si l’ouvrier travaille seulement des mains et non des pieds, ou des pieds mais non des mains, ou fût-ce seulement des épaules, il peut consommer des produits; selon R. Yossé b. Juda, il faut pour cela avoir travaillé des mains et des pieds –.",
+ "Si l’ouvrier travaille dans les récoltes de figues, il ne doit pas manger de raisins; s’il travaille dans des récoles de raisins, il ne doit pas manger de figues; mais il peut manger le genre de fruits dans lesquels il travaille, en s’abstenant dans l’endroit où ils sont moins bons, pour en manger davantage quand il arrive à l’endroit où ils sont meilleurs. Toutes ces règles s’appliquent au moment de l’ouvrage achevé; mais pour ne pas causer de perte au maître on a dit: l’ouvrier devra manger en allant d’un outil à l’autre, ou en revenant du pressoir à la maison. Enfin, l’âne peut manger de son chargement.",
+ "L’ouvrier peut manger des courges ou figues jusqu’à la valeur d’un dinar. R. Eliézer Hisma dit: la valeur de ce qu’il mange ne doit pas dépasser la somme de son salaire. Les autres docteurs le permettent; seulement, on peut donner à l’ouvrier le conseil de ne pas manger trop, car on ne le louerait plus à l’avenir.",
+ "L’ouvrier peut vendre au patron le droit de manger, en fixant la somme que le patron lui donnera pour ne pas manger les fruits dans lesquels il travaille; il peut faire ce marché pour soi-même, pour ses enfants majeurs avec leur consentement, pour ses esclaves majeurs et pour sa femme; car ces individus ont de l’intelligence. Mais l’ouvrier ne peut pas faire ce marché pour ses enfants mineurs, pour ses esclaves mineurs et pour son animal; car ces êtres n’ont pas d’intelligence pour vendre leur droit.",
+ "Les ouvriers qui travaillent dans des arbres de la 4e année ne doivent pas manger les fruits; mais si le propriétaire de ces arbres n’a pas avisé les ouvriers que les arbres sont dans la 4e année de leur existence, il est obligé, de racheter les fruits, pour que les ouvriers puissent en manger. Si les fruits étaient déjà prêts à être mangés, et le patron a besoin des ouvriers pour un travail, p. ex. pour boucher les tonneaux de vin, ou réparer les cercles de figues qui sont rompus, les ouvriers ne doivent pas en manger; mais si le patron ne les a pas avertis, il doit prélever la dîme pour que l’on puisse en manger.",
+ "Les gardiens des fruits peuvent en manger, car c’est l’usage du pays, quoique la loi biblique n’en parle pas. Il y a 4 catégories: le non salarié, celui qui emprunte un objet pour son usage; un gardien salarié, et un loueur (à son usage). Quant à leur responsabilité, il y a 3 degrés. 1° Le gardien non salarié n’a qu’à jurer s’il est défendeur. 2° Celui qui emprunte un objet a la responsabilité complète et il doit payer, quel qu’ait été l’accident. 3° Le gardien salarié et celui qui loue un objet ont la responsabilité partielle; ils doivent garder l’objet mieux que le gardien non salarié, le garantir même contre les accidents rares; aussi, sont-il condamnés à payer la valeur de l’objet, en cas de vol ou de perte (par un accident rare);mais ils sont acquittés si la perte a eu lieu par un accident (imprévu ou inévitable), p. ex. S’il a gardé pour salaire, ou loué, un animal qui est mort ou qui a été enlevé par l’ennemi. En ces derniers cas il doit jurer que cela a eu lieu ainsi.",
+ "Si l’animal confié au gardien a été attaqué par un loup seul, le cas n’est pas considéré comme accident inévitable; s’il y avait 2 loups, le cas est considéré comme accident. R. Juda a dit: un seul loup est considéré comme inévitable, quand il y a des attaques fréquentes de loups; l’attaque de deux chiens n’est pas considérée comme un danger. Yaddua le Babylonien dit au nom de R. Meir: si les deux chiens attaquent des deux côtés, c’est un danger. L’attaque d’un brigand est un danger; celle d’un lion, d’un ours, d’un tigre, d’un serpent, d’une panthère est un danger. Si le gardien a conduit l’animal qu’on lui a confié dans un endroit où se trouvent ces animaux féroces ou des brigands, le cas n’est pas considéré comme accident, car il n’aurait pas dû y conduire l’animal.",
+ "Si l’animal est mort de sa mort naturelle, c’est un accident; mais si le gardien a tourmenté l’animal, la mort n’est pas accidentelle. Si l’animal est monté (malgré le gardien) sur une montagne et est tombé, c’est un accident; mais si le gardien l’y a fait monter, la chute n’est pas accidentelle. Tous peuvent convenir avec le propriétaire du dépôt pour être acquitté en cas d’accident; le gardien non salarié peut conditionner d’être dispensé du serment, l’emprunteur de ne pas payer; le gardien salarié et le locataire, de ne pas jurer en cas d’accident inévitable, puis d’être dispensés du payement pour les autres accidents.",
+ "Toutes les conditions qui sont contraires à la loi biblique sont nulles; en outre toute condition qui vient après l’acte (pour limiter sa valeur) est nulle. Mais toute condition qu’on peut accomplir est légale, si elle est faite avant l’acte qu’elle doit limiter."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Un individu a emprunté une vache, et il a aussi loué le propriétaire de la vache. S’il n’a emprunté la vache qu’après que le propriétaire s’était déjà engagé, et que la vache soit morte, l’emprunteur est acquitté; car il est écrit: Si le propriétaire de l’animal emprunté est avec lui (avec l’emprunteur), celui-ci ne paiera pas (Ex 22, 14). Mais s’il a emprunté la vache, quand le propriétaire ne s’était pas encore engagé, et que la vache soit morte, il doit payer la valeur de la vache; car il est écrit (ibid.): Si le propriétaire n’est pas avec lui, il paiera.",
+ "Un individu emprunte une vache pour la moitié de la journée et il la loue pour l’autre moitié, ou bien il l’emprunte pour un jour et la loue pour le lendemain, ou bien il emprunte une vache et il en loue une autre; la 1re vache ou la seconde meurt. Le demandeur dit: la vache morte était empruntée, ou bien il dit que la vache est morte pendant qu’elle était empruntée, et le défendeur dit qu’il ne sait pas si l’autre dit vrai ou non; en ce cas le défendeur doit payer. Si le défendeur dit: la vache morte était louée, ou bien il dit que la vache est morte pendant qu’elle était louée, et si le demandeur dit qu’il ne sait pas si l’autre dit vrai ou non, le défendeur est acquitté. Si le demandeur dit que la vache morte était empruntée, et le défendeur dit qu’elle était louée; celui-ci prêtera serment qu’il dit la vérité (et il sera acquitté). Si le demandeur et le défendeur n’ont que des doutes, ils se partageront entre eux la valeur de la vache morte.",
+ "Un individu emprunte une vache à un autre: celui-ci l’envoie au premier par son fils, par son esclave, ou par une autre personne; ou bien il l’envoie par le fils ou l’esclave ou l’ouvrier du premier; la vache meurt avant d’arriver à destination, en ce cas, celui-ci est acquitté. Si l’emprunteur dit au prêteur: “Envoie-moi la vache par mon fils, mon esclave, ou par la personne que je t’enverrai”, ou s’il lui dit: “Envoie-la par ton fils, ton esclave, ou par une autre personne”; si le propriétaire adhère à cette demande, et la vache meurt après que cette personne l’a reçue, l’emprunteur doit en payer la valeur comme s’il l’avait reçue lui-même. Il en est de même au cas où le propriétaire dit à l’emprunteur: “Je veux t’envoyer la vache par mon fils, mon esclave, ou par une autre personne, ou par ton fils, ton esclave, ou par celui que tu m’enverras”; l’emprunteur lui dit: “Fais-le”, et le propriétaire le fait; et la vache meurt après que la personne indiquée l’a reçue; dans ce cas, l’emprunteur doit également en payer la valeur, comme s’il l’avait reçue lui-même, puisqu’il a dit au propriétaire de la vache de la lui envoyer. Ces règles s’appliquent aussi au cas où l’emprunteur rend la vache au propriétaire.",
+ "Un individu échange une vache contre un âne, et la vache a un petit; ou bien un individu vend son esclave qui accouche d’un enfant. L’individu dit que le petit veau, ou l’enfant est né quand la vache ou l’esclave était encore en sa propriété, et l’autre déclare au contraire que la naissance a eu lieu quand la vache ou l’esclave était déjà acquise à lui. Dans ce cas, les deux plaideurs se partageront le petit veau, ou l’enfant. Un individu a eu 2 esclaves ou deux champs, dont l’un est grand et l’autre petit. Il en a vendu un. L’acheteur prétend avoir acquis le grand; le vendeur dit ignorer lequel des 2 a été vendu; en ce cas l’acheteur prend le grand. Si le vendeur prétend avoir vendu le petit et que l’acheteur dit ne plus savoir lequel des 2 il a acheté, il ne peut prendre que le petit. Si le vendeur dit avoir vendu le petit et l’acheteur dit avoir acquis le grand, le vendeur prêtera serment qu’il dit vrai (et il donnera à l’acheteur le petit). Si le vendeur et l’acheteur doutent tous deux, ils se partagent entre eux l’objet en litige.",
+ "Un individu vend ses oliviers à un autre (qui les achète pour les couper plus tard et faire usage du bois); en attendant ils ont rapporté un peu d’huile, moins d’un quart par saah, cette huile appartient à l’acheteur. Mais s’il y a un quart que l’acheteur réclame (parce que les arbres lui appartiennent), et le vendeur le réclame, parce que le champ est à lui; les deux plaideurs se le partageront. Si un fleuve a arraché les oliviers du sol d’un individu, qui se trouvent maintenant dans le champ d’un autre individu, où ils ont rapporté des fruits; l’un réclame parce que les arbres lui appartiennent, et l’autre les réclame, parce qu’ils ont cru dans son champ; les 2 plaideurs se les partageront.",
+ "Si un individu loue une maison à un autre (à raison de tant par mois), il ne peut pas le mettre dehors en hiver, savoir de la fête des tentes à Pâques; s’il veut le mettre dehors, en été, il faut l’en avertir 30 jours d’avance. Dans les grandes villes, on ne peut mettre dehors les locataires ni en hiver ni en été, sans les avertir d’un an d’avance. S’il loue une boutique à un boutiquier, soit dans les petites villes, soit dans les grandes, il doit l’avertir un an d’avance. R. Simon b. Gamliel dit: s’il s’agit d’une boutique d’un boulanger ou d’un teinturier, le locataire de la boutique doit être averti 3 ans d’avance.",
+ "Si un individu loue une maison, il doit au locataire les portes, les verrous, la clef et tout ce qui peut être fait par un ouvrier; mais le locataire est obligé de faire lui-même ce qui peut être fait par tout le monde. Le fumier appartient au patron; le locataire n’a droit qu’aux cendres du four et des foyers.",
+ "Si un individu loue une maison à quelqu’un pour un an, le mois ajouté (embolismique) appartient au locataire. S’il a loué au mois, le mois ajouté appartient au propriétaire de la maison. Un individu loue à Sipporï une maison de bains, en disant qu’il la loue pour 12 dinars d’or par an, ou un dinar d’or par mois; comme l’année était alors de 13 mois, on se présenta devant R. Simon b. Gamliel et R. Yossé, qui dirent: Il faut partager le mois ajouté entre le locataire et le propriétaire.",
+ "Un individu loue une maison à un autre pour un certain espace de temps, et la maison s’écroule avant le terme, le propriétaire est obligé de fournir une autre maison au locataire. Si la maison était petite, il ne la fera pas grande; si elle était grande, il ne la fera pas petite; si elle n’avait qu’une pièce, il ne la fera pas de 2; si elle avait 2 pièces, il ne la fera pas d’une pièce. La maison qu’il fera n’aura pas moins ni plus de fenêtres que l’ancienne, à moins que le locataire et le propriétaire consentent tous les deux au changement."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Si un individu prend un champ à ferme, il fera tous les travaux accomplis d’ordinaire d’après l’usage du pays. Si l’usage veut qu’on coupe les épis, le fermier les coupera; si l’usage veut qu’on les arrache, il les arrachera. Si l’usage veut qu’on laboure la terre après la moisson, il le fera. La part que le fermier doit prendre du blé, il la prendra aussi du chaume et de la paille. La part qu’il prend du vin, il la prendra aussi des ceps et des échalas. Les échalas sont à la charge commune du propriétaire et du fermier.",
+ "Si un individu prend à ferme un champ qu’on arrose d’une source, ou un champ où se trouve un arbre, le fermier ne peut rien retrancher de ce qu’il doit au propriétaire, lors même que la source aura disparu ou que l’arbre se sera brisé. Mais s’il a dit qu’il veut prendre à ferme tel champ qu’on arrose d’une source, ou tel champ dans lequel se trouve un arbre, il peut retrancher au propriétaire l’équivalent du dommage qu’il a par la disparition de la source ou de l’arbre.",
+ "Si le fermier ne cultive pas le champ, il doit payer au propriétaire ce que le champ aurait produit s’il était cultivé; car il est écrit dans le bail: “si je laisse le champ sans culture, je paierai le meilleur” (des produits qu’on aurait pu en obtenir).",
+ "Si le fermier refuse de sarcler le champ, en disant au propriétaire: “tu n’en auras aucun dommage, puisque je te donne la part convenue des produits du champ”, le propriétaire peut le forcer de faire ce travail car il peut lui dire: “tu peux t’en aller un jour et me laisser mon champ plein de mauvaises herbes”.",
+ "Si le champ accepté en fermage donne trop peu de produits pour en obtenir un monceau, le fermier est obligé de le cultiver. R. Juda dit: il est obligé de le faire si le champ produit assez pour la semence qui y tombe.",
+ "Si les produits du champ affermé sont détruits par des sauterelles, ou sont brûlés, lorsque c’est un malheur public du pays, le fermier peut retrancher au propriétaire une somme correspondante à la perte qu’il subit; si la perte n’a pas été causée par un malheur public (si elle n’était pas générale), le fermier ne peut rien retrancher de la somme qu’il doit au propriétaire. R. Juda dit: si, au lieu de s’engager à donner au propriétaire une certaine quantité des produits du champ, le fermier s’est engagé à lui payer une certaine somme en argent, il ne peut rien retrancher, quand même la perte résulte du malheur public.",
+ "Le fermier qui s’engage à donner au propriétaire une certaine quantité des produits du champ (p. ex. dix kour de blé), par an, la lui donnera sur les produits du champ qu’il cultive, quoique ces produits aient été frappés de dévastation. Si les produits de ce champ sont meilleurs que ceux des autres, il est obligé de donner de ces produits au propriétaire, et il ne peut pas lui dire qu’il lui en achètera d’autres.",
+ "Un fermier qui prend un champ pour y semer de l’orge, ne doit pas y semer du froment s’il l’a pris pour y semer du froment, il peut y semer de l’orge. R. Simon b. Gamliel défend cette dernière mutation. S’il a pris le champ pour y semer des légumes secs il ne doit pas semer du blé s'il l'a pris pour y semer du blé, il peut y semer des légumes. R. Simon b. Gamliel le défend.",
+ "Le fermier qui prend un champ pour au moins 7 ans, peut la 1re année, y semer du lin, et couper les sycomores la même année. Mais s’il l’a pris pour peu d’ans (moins de 7 ans), il ne peut pas y semer du lin, ni couper de sycomores.",
+ "Un fermier qui prend en fermage un champ à raison de 700 zouz, pour un septenaire d’années, la 1e année de la période (ou repos agraire) y est comprise; mais s’il dit qu’il paiera 700 zouz pour 7 ans, l’année du repos ne compte pas pour une année de culture.",
+ "L’ouvrier qui travaille à la journée doit être payé le soir qui la suit, et le patron a le temps de payer toute la nuit jusqu’au lendemain matin. L’ouvrier loué pour la nuit doit être payé le jour qui la suit, et le patron a le temps de payer toute la journée avant le coucher du soleil. L’ouvrier loué pour quelques heures pourra être payé toute la nuit et toute la journée. Quant à l’ouvrier loué pour une semaine, pour un mois, pour une année, ou pour un septenaire d’années, s’il finit son travail pendant le jour, il sera payé dans cette journée avant le coucher du soleil; s’il finit son travail la nuit, le patron a le temps de le payer toute cette nuit et toute la journée qui la suit, jusqu’avant le coucher du soleil.",
+ "Il est écrit: Tu payeras son salaire le jour même (qu’il aura travaillé), le soleil ne doit pas se coucher sur cette dette (Dt 24, 15). Ce commandement s’applique aux ouvriers qui travaillent en personne, et aussi à ceux qui louent leurs bestiaux ou leurs instruments. On leur applique aussi ce texte (Lv 19, 13): tu ne garderas pas le salaire de l’ouvrier jusqu’au matin. Le patron transgresse la loi mosaïque, s’il ne paye pas le salaire (dans le temps prescrit) à l’ouvrier qui le réclame; mais il ne commet pas de péché si l’ouvrier ne réclame pas. Si le patron envoie l’ouvrier chez un boutiquier (afin de prendre à son compte des objets de consommation pour son salaire), ou s’il dit à un changeur de donner de sa part à l’ouvrier les pièces de monnaie qu’il lui doit, il a satisfait à la loi. Si l’ouvrier réclame son salaire pendant le temps prescrit pour le payement (tandis que le patron dit avoir déjà payé), l’ouvrier peut se le faire payer, en jurant dire vrai. S’il ne réclame que plus tard, il est obligé (comme tout demandeur) d’appuyer sa réclamation de preuves, et le serment ne suffira pas pour se faire payer. Cependant, s’il réclame plus tard, en amenant des témoins qui constatent qu’il a réclamé au temps prescrit pour le payement, il peut se faire payer son salaire en jurant dire vrai. Si l’ouvrier est un étranger païen, il faut observer envers lui (comme pour un Juif) le commandement biblique où il est écrit: “Ne retiens pas le salaire du mercenaire pauvre et nécessiteux, d’un de ses frères ou des étrangers qui sont dans ton pays, dans l’une de tes villes. Tu lui donneras le salaire le jour même (où il aura travaillé), le soleil ne doit pas se coucher sur cette dette, car il est pauvre et attend après; crains qu’il (Juif ou païen) n’implore contre toi Jéhovah, et que tu ne commettes un péché (ibid. 14, 15)”. Pourtant, l’étranger ne se trouve pas mentionné dans cet autre passage (Lv 19, 13): “Le salaire du mercenaire ne demeurera pas de vers toi jusqu’au lendemain”.",
+ "Le créancier ne peut pas saisir des gages du débiteur sans la permission du tribunal. Il n’entrera pas dans la maison du débiteur pour prendre un gage, car il est écrit: “Tu n’entreras dans sa maison pour te nantir de son gage; tu dois attendre dehors, et le débiteur t’apportera le gage au dehors” (Dt 24, 10-11). Si le créancier a deux gages, il rendra au débiteur un gage quand celui-ci en aura besoin, et il gardera l’autre. Il rendra p. ex. l’oreiller la nuit, et la charrue le jour. Si le débiteur est mort, le créancier n’est pas obligé de rendre le gage à ses héritiers. R. Simon b. Gamliel dit: Quand même le débiteur ne serait pas mort, le créancier n’est obligé de lui rendre le gage au moment où il en aura besoin, que dans un délai de 30 jours; ce terme passé, il peut le faire vendre pour le tribunal. Il ne faut pas prendre un gage à une veuve, qu’elle soit pauvre ou riche; car il est écrit: “tu ne prendras pas pour gage le vêtement d’une veuve” (ibid. 17). Celui qui prend une meule pour gage transgresse une double défense biblique, car il est écrit (ib. 6): “On ne doit pas saisir pour gage une meule inférieure ni une meule courante, car ce serait prendre la vie même en gage”. Non seulement la meule est interdite, mais il est défendu aussi de prendre pour gage un instrument quelconque qui sert à préparer la nourriture, car, d’après l’expression de l’écriture (ibid.) “ce serait prendre pour ainsi dire à gage la vie même de son prochain”."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Deux individus avaient une maison, dont l’un avait l’étage inférieur et l’autre le supérieur, la maison s’est écroulée, et on ne reconnaît pas les matériaux, bois et pierres, s’ils viennent de l’étage inférieur ou du supérieur; en ce cas, les débris sont partagés entre les deux individus. S’il y a des pierres brisées et d’autres intactes, on peut parfois reconnaître, d’après la cause et la manière de l’écroulement, si ce sont celles de l’étage supérieur, ou celles de l’inférieur, qui ont dû se briser (on fera alors le partage en conséquence). Si l’un des individus reconnaît une partie de ses pierres (qui sont intactes), il les prend, et elles lui sont comptées pour le partage.",
+ "Un individu a loué l’étage supérieur d’une maison; le plafond s’est écroulé; le propriétaire devrait rebâtir le plafond pour le locataire, mais il ne veut pas le faire. En ce cas, le locataire entre dans l’étage inférieur, où il reste jusqu’à ce que le propriétaire ait rebâti le plafond. R. Yossé dit: le propriétaire donnera la charpente du toit, et le locataire donnera l’enduit pour la maçonner.",
+ "Deux individus possèdent une maison à deux étages, dont l’inférieur appartient à l’un, et le supérieur à l’autre; la maison s’est écroulée. Le propriétaire de l’étage supérieur dit à l’autre: de faire rebâtir l’étage inférieur (et il rebâtira ensuite le supérieur); l’autre ne veut pas le faire. Dans ce cas, le propriétaire de l’étage supérieur peut rebâtir l’étage inférieur et y demeurer, jusqu’à ce que l’autre lui ait remboursé ses dépenses (après quoi, il rebâtira l’étage supérieur). R. Juda n’approuve pas cette idée; car le propriétaire de l’étage supérieur (avant de l’avoir rebâti) aura demeuré dans l’inférieur qui appartient à celui pour lequel il aura avancé de l’argent (nécessaire pour rebâtir son étage inférieur. Par conséquent, il vaut mieux pour le propriétaire de l’étage supérieur rebâtir d’abord les deux étages, et aller demeurer ensuite dans l’étage inférieur (en laissant le supérieur vide), jusqu’à ce que l’autre lui rembourse ses dépenses pour l’étage inférieur.",
+ "Un individu possède un jardin, au dessous duquel se trouve, creusé dans le roc, un pressoir pour les olives, et ce pressoir appartient à un autre individu; le terrain qui servait en même temps à l’un comme jardin et à l’autre comme voûte de son pressoir, s’est effondré; de sorte que l’un y a perdu la place pour les plantations, et l’autre la voûte de son pressoir. Si le propriétaire du pressoir ne veut pas faire les réparations nécessaires, celui du jardin sèmera au dessous (dans le pressoir), jusqu’à ce que l’autre rétablisse la voûte sur laquelle il pourra semer. Si un mur, ou un arbre, en tombant (par un accident imprévu) sur la voie publique, a causé un dommage, le propriétaire est acquitté. Si le magistrat, prévoyant la chute, a fixé au propriétaire un espace de temps dans lequel l’arbre devra être abattu, et si la maison ou l’arbre s’est écroulé avant ce jour, le propriétaire est acquitté (il n’est pas obligé de payer le dommage, qui en est résulté pour les passants); si l’écroulement a eu lieu après le jour fixé par le magistrat, le propriétaire est condamné à payer le dommage.",
+ "Un mur appartenant à un individu tombe, en s’écroulant, dans le jardin d’un autre; le propriétaire du jardin lui dit: “Enlève tes pierres”, et celui-ci lui répond: “Je t’en fais cadeau, fais-en ce que tu veux”. En ce cas, le propriétaire du mur est obligé d’enlever ses débris du jardin. Si le propriétaire du jardin a accepté ce cadeau, et a fait enlever les pierres, puis le propriétaire du mur lui dit: “Je te rembourserai tes dépenses, rends-moi mes débris”, on ne l’écoute pas. Un individu a loué un ouvrier pour ramasser la paille; l’ouvrier a travaillé, et il demande son salaire; le patron lui répond: “prends tout ce que tu as ramassé pour ton salaire”; l’ouvrier peut alors le refuser et réclamer son salaire. Si l’ouvrier l’a accepté, et si le patron lui dit plus tard: “je te donnerai ton salaire, rends-moi ma paille”, on ne l’écoute pas. Si un individu porte son fumier dans une place accessible au public, il faut qu’un autre soit là tout prêt à le porter de là dans les champs, afin qu’il ne reste pas dans cette place (où il pourrait causer des dommages aux passants). Il ne faut pas tremper l’argile dans une place accessible au public, ni faire des briques en cet endroit. Cependant, on peut y pétrir l’argile pour l’appliquer de suite dans un édifice, mais on ne peut pas pétrir des tuiles dans un pareil endroit. Si l’on bâtit dans une place accessible au public, et l’on apporte des pierres, il faut qu’un individu les enlève pour l’édifice aussitôt qu’on les apporte, afin qu’elles ne restent pas en cette place. Si, en attendant, les pierres ont causé des dommages aux passants, il faut payer les dommages. R. Simon b. Gamliel dit au contraire: on peut même préparer le travail un mois d’avance (sans être obligé de payer le dommage s’il en survient).",
+ "Deux jardins se touchent l’un l’autre; l’un se trouve dans un lieu élevé, et l’autre est plus bas: il y a des plantes sur l’escarpement qui sépare les deux jardins l’un de l’autre. R. Meir dit: ces plantes appartiennent au propriétaire du jardin supérieur, car c’est sa terre qui les nourrit, et que s’il enlevait sa terre, les plantes disparaîtraient. R. Juda dit: elles appartiennent au propriétaire du jardin inférieur, car si celui-ci voulait remplir son jardin jusqu’au dessus de ses plantes, elles disparaîtraient. Mais, dit R. Meir, puisque tous les deux se disent les maîtres des plantes en question, en se prévalant de ce qu’ils peuvent l’un et l’autre les anéantir, voyons d’où ces plantes tirent leur nourriture? R. Simon dit: le propriétaire du jardin supérieur prendra tout ce qu’en restant chez lui il peut atteindre avec la main; le reste appartiendra à l’autre."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Mischnajot mit deutscher \303\234bersetzung und Erkl\303\244rung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de].json" "b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Mischnajot mit deutscher \303\234bersetzung und Erkl\303\244rung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de].json"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06c2284646195dc17874488250be96a6ac27e82d
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Mischnajot mit deutscher \303\234bersetzung und Erkl\303\244rung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de].json"
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Metzia",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.talmud.de/tlmd/die-deutsche-mischna-uebersetzung",
+ "versionTitle": "Mischnajot mit deutscher Übersetzung und Erklärung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de]",
+ "priority": 0.5,
+ "versionNotes": "Ordnung Seraïm, übers. und erklärt von Ascher Samter. 1887.
Ordnung Moed, von Eduard Baneth. 1887-1927.
Ordnung Naschim, von Marcus Petuchowski u. Simon Schlesinger. 1896-1933.
Ordnung Nesikin, von David Hoffmann. 1893-1898.
Ordnung Kodaschim, von John Cohn. 1910-1925.
Ordnung Toharot, von David Hoffmann, John Cohn und Moses Auerbach. 1910-1933.",
+ "actualLanguage": "de",
+ "languageFamilyName": "german",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא מציעא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Wenn zwei einen Mantel festhalten und der Eine sagt: „ich habe ihn gefunden“, während der Andere sagt: „ich habe ihn gefunden“, oder, es sagt der Eine: „das Ganze gehört mir“, während der Andere sagt: „das Ganze gehört mir“; so schwört der Eine, dass er nicht weniger als die Hälfte daran hat, und der Andere schwört (ebenfalls), dass er nicht weniger als die Hälfte daran hat, und (darauf) teilen sie sich (darin). Sagt der Eine: „das Ganze gehört mir“, und der Andere sagt: „die Hälfte gehört mir“; so soll der, welcher sagt: „das Ganze gehört mir“, schwören, dass er nicht weniger als drei Viertel daran hat, und der, welcher sagt: „die Hälfte gehört mir“, schwöre, dass er nicht weniger als ein Viertel daran hat, und (darauf) nimmt jener drei Viertel und dieser ein Viertel.",
+ "Wenn zwei auf einem Tiere reiten, oder der Eine reitet darauf und der Andere führt es, und der Eine sagt: „das Ganze gehört mir“, während der Andere sagt: „das Ganze gehört mir“; so schwört der Eine, dass er nicht weniger als die Hälfte daran hat, und der Andere schwört (ebenfalls), dass er nicht weniger als die Hälfte daran hat, und (darauf) teilen sie sich (darin). Falls sie es einander zugestehen oder Zeugen darüber haben, teilen sie sich (darin) ohne Schwur.",
+ "Wenn jemand, auf einem Tiere reitend, einen Fund sieht und zum Andern sagt: „Gib mir denselben“! letzterer aber ihn nimmt und darauf sagt: „ich habe ihn mir angeeignet“; so hat er ihn (wirklich) als Eigentum erworben. Wenn er aber erst, nachdem er ihn jenem gegeben hat, sagt: „ich habe früher ihn mir angeeignet“, so hat er damit nichts gesagt.",
+ "Wenn jemand einen Fund sieht und sich auf ihn wirft, ein Anderer aber kommt und ergreift ihn; so hat der, welcher ihn ergriffen hat, ihn als Eigentum erworben. Sieht jemand sie (die Leute) hinter einem Funde herlaufen, (und zwar) hinter einem gebrochenen Hirsche, (oder) hinter Tauben, die nicht fliegen können, und er sagt: „mein Feld hat für mich das Eigentumsrecht daran erworben“, so hat es für ihn das Eigentumsrecht erworben.“ Konnte aber der Hirsch wie gewöhnlich laufen oder waren die Tauben flügge, und er sagte: „mein Feld hat für mich das Eigentumsrecht (daran) erworben“; so hat er damit nichts gesagt.",
+ "Der Fund seines Sohnes oder seiner Tochter, die minderjährig sind, der Fund seines kanaanitischen Sklaven oder seiner kanaanitischen Sklavin, der Fund seiner Frau — dies Alles gehört ihm. Dagegen der Fund seines Sohnes oder seiner Tochter, die grossjährig sind, der Fund seines Knechts oder seiner Magd, die Hebräer sind, der Fund seiner Frau, von der er sich geschieden, obgleich er ihr noch nicht ihre Kethuba bezahlt hat, — diese gehören ihnen.",
+ "Findet jemand Schuldscheine, so darf er, wenn darin eine Verpfändung der (unbeweglichen) Güter verzeichnet ist, dieselben nicht zurückgeben, weil das Gericht von den Gütern die Schuld einziehen würde; ist keine Güter-Verpfändung darin (verzeichnet), so darf man sie zurückgeben, da das Gericht von den Gütern nicht die Schuld einzieht. Dies die Worte R. Meir’s. Die Weisen aber sagen: In beiden Fällen darf man sie nicht zurückgeben, weil (in beiden Fällen) das Gericht von den Gütern die Schuld einziehen würde.",
+ "Findet jemand Scheidebriefe, Freilassungsbriefe, Testamente, Schenkungsurkunden oder Quittungen; so darf er sie nicht zurückgeben; denn ich sage, sie waren (bereits) geschrieben, als er sich ihretwegen (anders) besonnen hat, sie (nämlich) nicht zu geben.",
+ "Findet jemand Abschätzungsbriefe, Ernährungsverschreibungen, Scheine über Chaliza oder Më’un, Urkunden über Compromisse, sowie jede (andere) gerichtliche Urkunde; so soll er sie zurückgeben. Findet jemand (Urkunden) in einem Beutel oder in einer Tasche, (oder) zusammengerollte Scheine, oder ein Bündel Scheine; so soll er sie zurückgeben. Wieviel ist ein Bündel Scheine? Drei mit einander verbundene. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliel’s, sagt: Sind es Schuldscheine Eines Schuldners, der sich von dreien geliehen, so gibt man sie dem Schuldner zurück; sind es dagegen drei Schuldner, die von Einem Gläubiger sich geliehen haben, so gibt man sie dem Gläubiger zurück. Findet jemand einen Schein unter seinen Scheinen, und er weiss nicht, was es mit ihm für ein Bewandtnis hat; so lasse er ihn liegen, bis Elijahu kommt. Sind Gegenscheine dabei, so richte er sich nach den Gegenscheinen."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Welche Funde gehören dem Finder, und welche ist er verpflichtet ausrufen zu lassen? Folgende Funde gehören dem Finder: Findet jemand verstreute Früchte, verstreutes Geld, kleine Garben in öffentlichem Gebiete, Feigenkuchen, Brote vom Bäcker, an Schnüren aufgezogene Fische, Stücke Fleisch, Wollflocken, die von ihrem Lande kommen, Flachsbündel und Streifen von Purpurwolle, — so gehören diese ihm. (Dies die Worte R. Meïr’s). R. Jehuda sagt: Alles, woran eine Veränderung ist, muss man ausrufen lassen, z. B. wenn man einen Feigenkuchen findet, worin eine Scherbe ist, oder ein Brot, worin Geld ist. R. Simon Sohn Eleasars sagt: Alle Geräte von Handelsware braucht man nicht ausrufen zu lassen.",
+ "Und folgende Funde ist man verpflichtet ausrufen zu lassen: Findet man Früchte in einem Gefässe oder ein Gefäss an und für sich, Geld in einem Beutel oder einen Beutel an und für sich, Haufen Früchte, Haufen Geld, drei Münzen, eine auf der anderen (liegend), kleine Garben im Privatgebiete, Brote eines Hausherrn, Wollflocken, die vom Hause des Handwerkers gekauft sind, Krüge mit Wein oder Krüge mit Öl, — so ist man verpflichtet, diese ausrufen zu lassen.",
+ "Findet jemand hinter einer Wand oder hinter einer Mauer Tauben gebunden, oder (auch) in den Steigen der Felder, so darf er sie nicht berühren. Findet man ein Gefäss auf dem Miste, so darf man dasselbe, wenn es zugedeckt ist, nicht berühren; ist es aufgedeckt, so soll man es nehmen und ausrufen lassen. Findet man (etwas) in einem Steinhaufen oder in einer alten Wand, so gehört es dem Finder. Findet man (etwas) in einer neuen Wand in der Hälfte nach aussen, so gehört es dem Finder; (findet man es) in der Hälfte nach innen, so gehört es dem Hausherrn. Hatte er aber das Haus Andern vermiethet, so gehört es (das Gefundene) dem Finder, selbst wenn er es mitten im Hause gefunden hat.",
+ "Findet man (etwas) in einem Laden, so gehört es dem Finder. (Findet man es) zwischen dem Kasten und dem Krämer, so gehört es dem Krämer. (Findet man etwas) vor dem Wechsler, so gehört es dem Finder; (findet man es) zwischen dem Stuhl und dem Wechsler, so gehört es dem Wechsler. Kauft jemand Früchte von seinem Nächsten, oder schickt sein Nächster ihm Früchte, und er findet darin Geld, so gehört es ihm (dem Finder); war es eingebunden, so muss er es nehmen und ausrufen lassen.",
+ "Auch das Gewand war in der Gesamtheit aller dieser (verlorenen Dinge); warum aber ist es ausgeschlossen worden ? Um damit (alle anderen Dinge) zu vergleichen: So wie das Gewand (dadurch) ausgezeichnet ist, dass Zeichen daran sich befinden und dasselbe einen Eigentümer hat, der es fordert; ebenso muss man alles, woran Zeichen sich befinden und das einen Eigentümer hat, der es fordert, ausrufen lassen.",
+ "Wie lange ist man verpflichtet es ausrufen zu lassen? Bis die Nachbaren davon Kenntnis erhalten. Dies die Worte R. Meïr’s. R. Jehuda sagt: Drei Feste, und nach dem letzten Feste sieben Tage, damit er drei Tage nach Hause reise, drei Tage zurückkehre und Einen Tag ausrufen lasse.",
+ "Nennt jemand das verlorene Ding, gibt aber nicht dessen Zeichen an, so gibt man es ihm nicht. Einem Betrüger gibt man es nicht, obgleich er dessen Zeichen angibt, denn es heisst (Deut. 22, 2): „Bis zum Forschen deines Bruders nach demselben“, (was zu erklären ist:) bis Du erforschest Deinen Bruder, ob er ein Betrüger ist, oder nicht. Jedes Ding, das arbeitet und isst, soll arbeiten und essen; ein Ding aber, das nicht arbeitet und (dennoch) isst, soll verkauft werden, denn es heisst (das.): „Du sollst es ihm zurückgeben“, (das will sagen:) siehe, wie du es ihm zurückgeben kannst. Was soll mit dem Gelde geschehen? R. Tarphon sagt: Er kann sich dessen bedienen, deshalb ist er, wenn es verloren geht, schuldig, dafür zu haften. R. Akiba sagt: Er darf sich desselben nicht bedienen, deshalb ist er, wenn es verloren geht, nicht dafür zu haften schuldig.",
+ "Hat jemand Bücher gefunden, so lese er darin einmal in dreissig Tagen. Wenn er nicht lesen kann, so muss er sie (wenigstens) rollen. Doch darf er nicht darin etwas zum ersten Male lernen, und es darf kein anderer mit ihm lesen. Hat er eine Decke gefunden, so soll er sie einmal in dreissig Tagen ausschütteln und sie ausbreiten, wenn es für sie nötig ist, aber nicht seiner (eigenen) Ehre wegen. (Fand er) silberne und kupferne Geräte, so kann er sich derselben bedienen, wenn es für sie nötig ist, aber nicht so, dass sie abgenutzt werden. (Fand er) goldene oder gläserne Geräte, so darf er sie nicht berühren, bis Elijahu kommt. Findet jemand einen Sack oder eine Kufe oder sonst eine Sache, die er gewöhnlich nicht trägt, so braucht er sie nicht aufzunehmen.",
+ "Was heisst eine verlorene Sache? Findet man einen Esel oder eine Kuh auf dem Wege weiden, so ist dies keine verlorene Sache; (findet man aber) einen Esel, dessen Geräte umgewendet sind, oder eine Kuh, die zwischen den Weinbergen läuft, so ist dies eine verlorene Sache. Hat er sie zurückgeführt, und sie ist davongelaufen, hat er sie (dann nochmals) zurückgeführt, und sie ist (nochmals) davongelaufen, selbst (wenn dies) vier- oder fünfmal (geschah), so ist er verpflichtet, sie (wiederholt) zurückzuführen, denn es heisst (Deut. 22, 1): „Zurückbringen, zurückbringen sollst du sie.“ Hatte er (dabei) Versäumnis um einen Sela, so kann er nicht zu ihm sagen: „Gib mir einen Sela!“, sondern er gibt ihm seinen Lohn, wie einem Tagelöhner, der müßig geht. Wenn dort ein Gericht ist, so kann er vor dem Gerichte (sich) ausbedingen. Wenn kein Gericht dort ist, vor wem kann er ausbedingen?! Dann geht das Seinige vor.",
+ "Findet man es (das Vieh) in einem Stalle, so ist man seinetwegen nicht verpflichtet; (findet man es) im öffentlichen Gebiete, so ist man seinetwegen verpflichtet. Wenn es auf einem Begräbnisplatze sich befindet, so darf er sich seinetwegen nicht verunreinigen. Wenn sein Vater zu ihm sagt: „Verunreinige dich!“ oder wenn er zu ihm sagt: „Gib (das Verlorene) nicht zurück!“, so darf er ihm nicht gehorchen. Hat er (die Last) abgeladen und aufgeladen, (dann nochmals) abgeladen und aufgeladen, selbst vier- oder fünfmal; so ist er (immer noch) verpflichtet, denn es heisst (Exod. 23, 5): „Abladen, abladen sollst du!“ Geht er (der Eigentümer) fort, setzt sich hin und sagt: „Weil es dir geboten ist, so lade ab, wenn du abladen willst!“; dann ist man frei, denn es heisst (das.): „Mit ihm.“ Ist jener aber alt oder krank, so ist man verpflichtet. Es ist von der Thora geboten, abzuladen, nicht aber aufzuladen. R. Simeon sagt: Auch aufzuladen. R. Jose, der Galiläer sagt: Wenn darauf mehr war, als es zu tragen vermag, so ist man seinetwegen nicht verpflichtet, denn es heisst (das.): »Unter seiner Last« d. h. einer Last, die es aushalten kann.",
+ "(Hat jemand zurückzuführen) sein Verlorenes und das Verlorene seines Vaters, so geht sein Verlorenes vor; (handelt es sich um) sein Verlorenes und das Verlorene seines Lehrers, so geht (ebenfalls) das Seinige vor; (handelt es sich um) das Verlorene seines Vaters und das Verlorene seines Lehrers, so geht das seines Lehrers vor, denn sein Vater hat ihn in diese Welt gebracht, während sein Lehrer, der ihn Weisheit gelehrt, ihn zum Leben der zukünftigen Welt bringt. Ist aber sein Vater ein Weiser, so geht das seines Vaters vor. Tragen sein Vater und sein Lehrer eine Last, so nehme er (zuerst) die des Lehrers ab, und nachher nehme er die des Vaters ab. Sind sein Vater und sein Lehrer in der Gefangenschaft, so löse er (zuerst) seinen Lehrer, und nachher löse er seinen Vater aus. Ist aber sein Vater ein Weiser, so löse er (zuerst) seinen Vater, und nachher löse er seinen Lehrer aus."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Gibt jemand seinem Nächsten Vieh oder Geräte in Verwahrung, und diese werden gestohlen oder gehen verloren; (so gelten folgende Bestimmungen:) Zahlt er (der Verwahrer) und will nicht schwören — während man doch gesagt hat: »Ein unentgeltlicher Hüter schwört und ist frei« —; so soll der Dieb, wenn er gefunden wird, Doppel-Ersatz, und, falls er (das Vieh) geschlachtet oder verkauft hat, vier- oder fünffachen Ersatz bezahlen — wem soll er bezahlen? — demjenigen, bei dem das Verwahrgut gewesen ist. Schwört er (der Verwahrer) dagegen und will nicht bezahlen; so soll der Dieb, wenn er gefunden wird, Doppelersatz und, falls er (das Vieh) geschlachtet oder verkauft hat, vier- oder fünffachen Ersatz bezahlen — wem soll er bezahlen? — dem Eigentümer des Verwahrgutes.",
+ "Mietet jemand eine Kuh von seinem Nächsten und leiht sie einem andern und sie stirbt auf gewöhnliche Weise; so schwöre der Mieter, dass sie auf gewöhnliche Weise gestorben ist, und der Entleiher bezahle dem Mieter. Da sagte R. Jose: Wie kann denn dieser mit der Kuh seines Nächsten Handel treiben; es muss vielmehr die Kuh dem Eigentümer zurückgegeben werden.",
+ "Sagt jemand zu Zweien: »Ich habe Einem von euch eine Mine geraubt und weiss nicht, wem von euch« — oder: »Der Vater des Einen von euch hat mir eine Mine in Verwahrung gegeben, und ich weiss nicht, wessen (Vater) es war« so muss er jedem von beiden eine Mine geben, da er es von selbst bekennt.",
+ "Wenn von Zweien, von denen der Eine eine Mine und der Andere zweihundert Sus einem Dritten in Verwahrung gegeben hatten, der Eine sagt: »Mir gehören die zweihundert« — und der Andere (ebenfalls) sagt: »Mir gehören die zweihundert«; — so gebe man dem Einen eine Mine und dem Andern eine Mine, und der Rest bleibe liegen, bis Elijahu kommt. Da sagte R. Jose: Wenn dem so wäre, was verlöre der Betrüger? Es bleibe vielmehr alles liegen, bis Elijahu kommt.",
+ "Ebenso ist es bei zwei Geräten, von denen das eine eine Mine und das andere tausend Sus wert ist: Sagt der Eine: »das wertvollere gehört mir«, während der Andere (ebenfalls) sagt: »das werthvollere gehört mir« —; so gebe man Einem von ihnen das geringere, und von dem grössern gebe man dem Zweiten den Werth des geringeren, und der Rest bleibe liegen bis Elijahu kommt. R. Jose sagt: Wenn dem so wäre, was verlöre der Betrüger? Es bleibe vielmehr Alles liegen, bis Elijahu kommt.",
+ "Gibt Jemand seinem Nächsten Früchte in Verwahrung; so darf dieser, selbst wenn sie zu Verlust kommen, sie nicht berühren. R. Simeon Sohn Gamliels sagt: Er verkaufe sie vor Gericht, weil er (dadurch) gleichsam dem Eigentümer Verlorenes zurückbringt.",
+ "Gibt jemand seinem Nächsten Früchte in Verwahrung, so darf dieser ihm den Abgang abrechnen, und zwar bei Weizen und Reis neun halbe Kab vom Kor, bei Gerste und Hirse neun Kab vom Kor, bei Spelt und Leinsamen drei Seah vom Kor, Alles nach Verhältnis des Maasses, Alles nach Verhältnis der Zeit. Da sagt R. Jochanan Sohn Nuri’s: Was kümmert’s denn die Mäuse, sie essen doch sowohl von Vielem als von Wenigem?! Er darf vielmehr nur von Einem Kor ihm den Abgang abrechnen. R. Jehuda sagt: Wenn es ein grosses Maass war, darf er ihm keinen Abgang abrechnen, weil sie mehr sind.",
+ "Er darf ihm ein Sechstel vom Weine abrechnen. R. Jehuda sagt: Ein Fünftel. Vom Öle darf er ihm drei Log vom Hundert abrechnen, anderthalb Log Hefen und anderthalb Log (wegen) Einsaugung. War es geläutertes Öl, so darf er ihm keine Hefen abrechnen; waren die Krüge alt, so darf er ihm nichts wegen der Einsaugung abrechnen. R. Jehuda sagt: Auch wenn Einer das ganze Jahr hindurch seinem Nächsten geläutertes Öl verkauft, so muss dieser anderthalb Log Hefen beim Hundert übernehmen.",
+ "Gibt man seinem Nächsten ein Fass in Verwahrung, und der Eigentümer bestimmt dafür keinen Platz, und jener bewegt es (von seinem Orte) fort, und es zerbricht; (da gilt Folgendes:) zerbricht es unter seiner Hand, so ist er, falls es zu seinem (eigenen) Gebrauche geschah, schuldig und, falls es für das Fass nötig war, frei; zerbricht es aber, nachdem er es hingelegt hat, so ist er frei sowohl, wenn er es brauchte, als auch, wenn es für das Fass nötig war. Bestimmt dagegen der Eigentümer dafür einen Platz, und jener bewegt es fort, und es zerbricht; so ist er, mag es unter seiner Hand oder, nachdem er es hingelegt hat, zerbrochen sein, falls er es brauchte, schuldig und, falls es für das Fass nötig war, frei.",
+ "Gibt jemand seinem Nächsten Geld in Verwahrung, und dieser bindet es ein und lässt es an seinem Rücken herabhängen, oder er übergibt es seinem Sohne und seiner Tochter, die noch unmündig sind, und verschliesst vor ihnen nicht, wie es sich gehört; so ist er schuldig, weil er nicht nach der Hüter Weise gehütet hat. Hat er aber nach der Hüter Weise gehütet, so ist er frei.",
+ "Wenn jemand einem Geldwechsler Geld in Verwahrung gibt, so darf dieser, wenn es eingebunden ist, sich dessen nicht bedienen; deshalb ist er, wenn es verloren geht, nicht schuldig, dafür zu haften. Ist es aber offen, so darf er sich dessen bedienen; deshalb ist er, wenn es verloren geht, schuldig, dafür zu haften. (Liegt das Geld) bei einem Hausherrn (in Verwahrung), so darf dieser, sowohl wenn es eingebunden, als wenn es offen ist, sich dessen nicht bedienen; deshalb ist er, wenn es verloren geht, nicht dafür zu haften schuldig. Ein Krämer ist wie ein Hausherr (zu betrachten). Dies die Worte R. Meïr’s. R. Jehuda sagt: Ein Krämer ist wie ein Geldwechsler (zu betrachten).",
+ "Wenn jemand nach einem Verwahrgute die Hand ausgestreckt hat, so wird er, nach Bet-Schammai, bestraft mit dem, was es abgenommen, und mit dem, was es zugenommen hat. Bet-Hillel sagen: (Er ersetzt es so) wie es zur Zeit der Entwendung war. R. Akiba sagt: Wie es zur Zeit der Forderung war. Wer sich vornimmt, nach einem Verwahrgute die Hand auszustrecken, ist, nach Bet-Schammai, schuldig. Bet-Hillel aber sagen: Er ist nicht eher schuldig, bis er die Hand danach ausgestreckt hat, (denn es heisst (Exod. 22, 7): »Dass er nicht seine Hand ausgestreckt hat nach dem Gute seines Nächsten« (Auf welche Weise?) Neigte er das Fass und nahm daraus ein Viertel (Log), und es zerbrach, so bezahlt er bloß ein Viertel (Log). Hob er aber das Fass empor und nahm daraus ein Viertel (Log), und es zerbrach, so bezahlt er den Wert des Ganzen."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Das Gold erwirbt das Silber, das Silber, erwirbt aber nicht das Gold; das Kupfer erwirbt das Silber, das Silber erwirbt aber nicht das Kupfer. Das schlechte Geld erwirbt das gute, das gute aber erwirbt nicht das schlechte. Die ungeprägte Münze erwirbt die geprägte, die geprägte aber erwirbt nicht die ungeprägte; bewegliche Güter erwerben das Geld, das Geld aber erwirbt nicht die beweglichen Güter. (Dies ist die Regel:) Alle beweglichen Güter erwerben einander.. Ein Beisaß-Proselyte braucht nur wegen eines Beisaß-Proselyten auszuwandern. Der Blinde braucht nicht auszuwandern; dies die Worte R. Jehuda’s; R. Meïr sagt: Er muss auswandern. Der Feind, (der tötet) wandert nicht in die Freistadt. R. Jose, Sohn Jehudas, sagt: Der Feind wird hingerichtet, weil er als gewarnt betrachtet wird. R. Simon sagt: Mancher Feind wandert in die Freistadt, mancher nicht; dies ist die Regel: Wo man sagen kann, er habe absichtlich getötet, wandert er nicht dahin; wo man aber nicht sagen kann, er habe absichtlich getötet, wandert er aus.",
+ "Wohin wandern sie? Nach den Freistädten, nach den dreien, die jenseits des Jardens, und nach den dreien, die im Lande Kenaan sind, denn es heißt (Num. 35,14): „Drei Städte sollt ihr geben jenseits des Jardens, und drei Städte sollt ihr geben im Lande Kenaan u. s. w.“ Bevor die drei (Städte) im Lande Israel auserwählt waren, hatten die drei jenseits des Jardens kein Asylrecht, denn es heißt (Num. 35, 13): „Sechs Zufluchts-Städte sollen es sein“, es erhielten also alle sechs zugleich das Asylrecht.",
+ "Und Straßen waren nach denselben gerichtet, von einer zur andern, denn es heißt (Deut. 19, 3): „Richte Dir den Weg ein und Teile in drei Teile u. s. w.“ Man gibt ihm zwei Weisen-Jünger mit, auf dass sie dem Bluträcher, wenn er ihn unterwegs umbringen wollte, Vorstellungen machen. R. Meir sagt: Er kann allein für sich reden, denn es heißt (Deut. 19, 4): „Dies sei das Wort des Totschlägers.“",
+ "R. Jose, Sohn Jehudas sagt: Anfangs eilen sowohl der unvorsätzliche als der vorsätzliche Totschläger nach den Freistädten, und das Gericht schickt hin und lässt ihn von dort holen; wer vom Gerichte zum Tode verurteilt wird, den tötet man; wer nicht verurteilt wird, den entlässt man; wer zur Exilierung verurteilt wird, den bringt man wieder an seine Stätte, denn es heißt (Num. 35, 25): „Und die Gemeinde soll ihn zurückbringen in seine Freistadt u. s. w.“ — Sowohl der mit dem Salböle Gesalbte, als der durch die hohepriesterlichen Kleider Geweihte, als auch der von seinem Hohepriesteramte Abgegangene bewirken (durch ihren Tod), dass der Totschläger zurückkehrt. R. Jehuda sagt: Auch der zum Kriege Gesalbte bewirkt, dass der Totschläger zurückkehrt. Daher pflegen die Mütter der Hohenpriester ihnen Nahrung und Kleidung zu verabreichen, damit sie nicht beten, dass ihre Söhne sterben. Wenn, nachdem sein UrTeil gefällt worden, der Hohepriester stirbt, so braucht er nicht auszuwandern; wenn aber, bevor sein Urteil gefällt worden, der Hohepriester gestorben ist und man einen andern an seine Stelle eingesetzt hat und dann sein Urteil gefällt worden ist; so kehrt er erst nach dem Tode des zweiten zurück.",
+ "Ist sein Urteil gefällt worden, als kein Hohepriester da war; oder hat Jemand einen Hohenpriester getötet; oder hat ein Hohepriester Einen getötet; so darf er niemals von dort hinausgehen. — Er darf nicht hinausgehen, selbst nicht um ein Zeugnis (zur Erfüllung) eines Gebotes oder in Geldangelegenheiten oder in Lebenssachen abzulegen, selbst nicht wenn Israel seiner bedarf; und wäre er auch ein Feldherr, wie Joab, Sohn Zeruja’s, so darf er doch nie von dort hinausgehen, denn es heißt (Num.35, 25): „Da er floh dorthin“, d. h. dort sei seine Wohnung, dort sei sein Tod, dort sei sein Grab. Sowie die Stadt schützt, so schützt auch ihr Grenzgebiet. Geht der Totschläger außerhalb des Grenzgebietes hinaus, und der Bluträcher findet ihn, so sagt R. Jose, der Galiläer: Es ist dem Bluträcher geboten und jedem (andern) Menschen steht es frei, (jenen umzubringen). R. Akiba sagt: Es steht dem Bluträcher bloß frei (ihn umzubringen), und jeder andere Mensch wird seinetwegen nicht schuldig. Steht ein Baum innerhalb des Grenzgebietes, dessen Zweig aber neigt sich aus dem Grenzgebiete heraus, oder der Baum steht außerhalb des Grenzgebietes, und dessen Zweig neigt sich in das Grenzgebiet hinein, so richtet man sich in Allem nach dem Zweige. Hat er in der Freistadt selbst getötet, so muss er von einer Nachbarschaft in die andere Nachbarschaft wandern; ein Levite aber muss von (seiner) Stadt zur (andern) Stadt auswandern.",
+ "(Desgleichen), wenn ein Totschläger nach seiner Freistadt auswandert, und die Einwohner der Stadt wollen ihm Ehre erweisen, so muss er zu ihnen sagen: „ich bin ein Totschläger!“ Sagen sie zu ihm: „dessen ungeachtet!“, so kann er es von ihnen annehmen, denn es heißt (Deut. 19, 4): Dies sei das Wort des Totschlägers.“ Sie mussten den Leviten Miete zahlen, dies die Worte R. Jehudas: R. Meïr sagt: Sie brauchten ihnen keine Miete zu zahlen. Er kehrt in das Amt zurück, in dem er (vorher) war, dies die Worte R. Meïr’s; R. Jehuda sagt: Er kehrt nicht in das Amt zurück, in dem er (vorher) war."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Folgende erleiden die Geißelstrafe: Wer seiner Schwester, der Schwester seines Vaters, der Schwester seiner Mutter, der Schwester seiner Frau, der Frau seines Bruders, der Frau seines Vater-Bruders oder einem menstruierenden Weibe beiwohnt; ein Hohepriester, der eine Witwe, ein gemeiner Priester, der eine Verstoßene oder eine Chaluza, ein Israelit, der eine Mamseret oder Nethina, oder eine Israeliten-Tochter, die einen Nathin oder Mamser geheiratet hat. Wenn eine Witwe zugleich eine Verstoßene ist, so ist man ihretwegen wegen (Übertretung) zweier Verbote strafbar; ist eine Verstoßene zugleich eine Chaluza, so ist man ihretwegen bloß wegen (Übertretung) eines Verbotes schuldig.",
+ "(Ferner) ein Unreiner, der Heiliges gegessen, ein ins Heiligtum gekommener Unreiner; wer Unschlitt, Blut, (vom Opferfleische) Übriggebliebenes, Verworfenes, oder Unreines gegessen; wer (Opfer) außerhalb des Heiligtums geschlachtet oder dargebracht; wer Gesäuertes am Pesach gegessen; wer am Versöhnungstage gegessen oder eine Arbeit verrichtet hat; wer das Salböl oder das Räucherwerk nachgemacht; wer sich mit dem (heiligen) Salböle salbt; wer Aas, Zerrissenes, Geschmeiss oder Gewürm gegessen; wer Tebel, ersten Zehnt, dessen Hebe noch nicht abgesondert war, oder zweiten Zehnt oder Geheiligtes, die nicht ausgelöst waren, gegessen. Wie viel muss man vom Tebel gegessen haben, um schuldig zu sein? R. Simon sagt: Es mag noch so wenig sein. Die Weisen aber sagen: (Es muss) wie eine Olive (groß sein). Da sagte R. Simon zu ihnen: Gestehet ihr mir nicht zu, dass der, welcher eine noch so kleine Ameise isst, schuldig sei? Da sagten sie zu ihm: Weil diese so ist, wie sie geschaffen ward. Da sagte er zu ihnen: Auch Ein Weizenkorn ist so, wie es geschaffen ward.",
+ "Wenn Jemand Erstlinge, bevor er (den Schriftabschnitt) dabei gelesen, hochheilige Opfer außerhalb der Umhänge, leichtere Opfer oder zweiten Zehnt außerhalb der Mauer gegessen, oder einen Knochen von einem reinen Pesach-Opfer zerbrochen hat, so empfängt er vierzig (Geißelhiebe); wer aber (etwas) von einem reinen Pesach-Opfer übrig lässt oder von einem unreinen (einen Knochen) zerbricht, empfängt nicht vierzig (Geißelhiebe).",
+ "Wenn Jemand eine Vogel-Mutter samt den Jungen nimmt, so sagt R. Jehuda: Er erleidet die Geißelung und braucht (die Mutter) nicht wegfliegen zu lassen. Die Weisen aber sagen: Er lässt (die Mutter) wegfliegen und wird nicht gegeißelt. Dies ist die Regel: Wegen jedes Verbotes, bei dem (nach dessen Übertretung) ein Gebot auszuüben ist, erleidet man nicht die Geißelstrafe.",
+ "Wer sich eine Glatze am Kopfe schert, wer die Seitenenden seines Haupthaares rund abnimmt, wer die Enden seines Bartes zerstört und wer um einen Toten sich einen Einschnitt macht, ist schuldig. Macht sich Jemand Einen Einschnitt um fünf Tote, oder fünf Einschnitte um Einen Toten, so ist er für jeden Einzelnen schuldig. Wegen (der Enden) des Haupthaares zweimal, einmal für die eine und einmal für die andere Seite. Wegen (der Enden) des Bartes zweimal für die eine, zweimal für die andere Seite und einmal für unten. R. Elieser sagt: Wenn Einer sie alle auf einmal abnimmt, so ist er nur einmal schuldig. Man ist nur schuldig, wenn man ihn mit einem Schermesser abnimmt. R. Elieser sagt: Selbst wenn er ihn mit einer Zange oder einem Glätter entfernt, ist er schuldig.",
+ "Wer eine eingegrabene Schrift (an sich) macht, (ist schuldig). Hat er geschrieben aber nicht eingegraben, oder hat er eingegraben aber nicht geschrieben, so ist er nicht schuldig, sondern nur, wenn er geschrieben und eingegraben, (und zwar) mit Tinte, Augenschwärze oder was sonst ein (bleibendes) Zeichen macht. R. Simon, Sohn Jehudas, sagt im Namen R. Simons: Man ist nur dann schuldig, wenn man dort den Namen hingeschrieben hat, denn es heißt (Lev. 19, 28): „Eine eingegrabene Schrift sollt ihr an euch nicht machen, ich bin der Ewige.“",
+ "Wenn ein Nasir den ganzen Tag über Wein trinkt, so ist er nur einmal schuldig. Sagte man aber (jedes Mal) zu ihm: „trinke nicht!“, und er trank, so ist er für jedes (Trinken) besonders schuldig.",
+ "Hat er sich den ganzen Tag über an Toten verunreinigt, so ist er nur einmal schuldig. Sagte man aber (jedes Mal) zu ihm: „verunreinige dich nicht!“, und er verunreinigte sich, so ist er wegen jeder (Verunreinigung) besonders schuldig. Hat er sich den ganzen Tag geschoren, so ist er nur einmal schuldig. Sagte man aber (jedes Mal) zu ihm: „schere dich nicht!“, und er schor sich, so ist er wegen jedes (Scherens) besonders schuldig. Hat Jemand den ganzen Tag über Gewänder von gemischten Arten angezogen, so ist er nur einmal schuldig. Sagte man aber (jedes Mal) zu ihm: „Ziehe es nicht an!“, und er zog es aus und wieder an, so ist er wegen jedes (Anziehens) besonders schuldig.",
+ "Mancher pflügt eine Furche und wird dabei wegen acht Verbote schuldig, nämlich wenn er pflügt mit einem Ochsen und einem Esel zusammen, welche geheiligt sind, bei gemischten Saaten im Weinberge, und zwar im Feier-Jahre, an einem Festtage, und er ist ein Priester und ein Nasir, und es geschieht an unreiner Stätte. Chananja, Sohn Chakhinai’s, sagt: (Es könnte) noch (hinzukommen), dass er dabei mit einem Gewande von gemischten Arten bekleidet ist. Da sagten sie zu ihm: Dies gehört nicht zu diesem Namen. Da sagte er zu ihnen: Auch der Nasir gehört nicht zu diesem Namen.",
+ "Wie viel Hiebe gibt man ihm? Vierzig weniger Einen, denn es heißt (Deut. 25, 2—3): „an der Zahl vierzig“, d. h. eine Anzahl, die nahe an vierzig ist. R. Jehuda sagt: Er bekommt vierzig Hiebe vollständig. Wohin bekommt er den (letzten)überschüssigen? Zwischen die Schultern.",
+ "Man schätzt, ihm immer nur eine solche Anzahl Hiebe zu, die sich in drei Teile teilen lässt. Hat man ihn geschätzt, dass er vierzig aushalten könne, und nachdem er einen Teil empfangen, sagt man, er würde keine vierzig aushalten, so ist er frei. Hat man ihn geschätzt, dass er nur achtzehn aushalten könne, und nachdem er diese empfangen, sagt man, er könne vierzig aushalten, so ist er frei. Hat er eine Sünde begangen, worauf zwei Verbote stehen, und man hat für ihn (wegen beider) nur Eine Schätzung gemacht, so wird er gegeißelt und ist dann frei; wo nicht so wird er gegeißelt, und nachdem er geheilt ist, wird er nochmals gegeißelt.",
+ "Auf welche Weise geißelt man ihn? Man bindet ihm beide Hände an eine Säule nach beiden Seiten; der Diener der Synagoge fasst an seine Kleider, mögen sie auch (dadurch) zerrissen oder zerfetzt werden, bis er ihm das Herz entblößt; hinter ihm wird ein Stein gelegt, auf den der Synagogen - Diener sich stellt, mit einem Riemen von Kalbleder in der Hand, zusammengelegt zu zwei Riemen, und diese wieder zu vier; und zwei (andere) Riemen ziehen sich daran auf und ab.",
+ "Der Handgriff (der Geißel) ist eine Handbreit (lang), und die Breite derselben ist (ebenfalls) eine Handbreit, und deren Ende muss bis an den Nabel reichen. Man gibt ihm ein Drittel der Hiebe vorn und zwei Drittel auf den Rücken. Während man ihn schlägt, soll er weder stehen, noch sitzen, sondern hingebeugt sein, denn es heißt (Deut. 25, 2): „Der Richter soll ihn hinlegen lassen“. Der Geissler geißele ihn mit Einer Hand und aus ganzer Kraft.",
+ "Der Vorleser liest vor (die Verse Deut. 28, 58—59): „Wenn Du nicht beobachten wirst auszuüben u. s. w.; so wird der Ewige auszeichnen Deine Schläge und die Schläge u. s. w.“; und er fängt wieder den Anfang der Verse an; ferner Deut. 29,8: „Beobachtet die Worte dieses Bundes etc.“, und er schließt mit Ps. 78,38: „Er, der Barmherzige, vergibt die Sünde etc.“; und er fängt wieder den Anfang des Verses an. Stirbt er unter seiner Hand, so ist der Geissler nicht schuldig. Gibt er ihm aber einen Streich zu viel und er stirbt, so muss er seinetwegen ins Exil wandern. Hat er sich verunreinigt, sei es durch Leibesöffnung, sei es durch Urinlassen, so wird er frei. R. Jehuda sagt: Ein Mann nur wegen Leibesöffnung, eine Frau auch wegen Urinlassens.",
+ "Alle, welche die Ausrottungsstrafe verwirkt haben und gegeißelt werden, sind (dadurch) von der Ausrottung befreit, denn es heißt (Deut. 25,3): „Es würde entwürdigt dein Bruder vor deinen Augen;“ d. sagt, nachdem er gegeißelt wurde, ist er wie dein Bruder; dies die Worte des R. Chananja, Sohn Gamliels. Ferner sagte R. Chananja, Sohn Gamliels: Wenn Jemand, der eine Sünde begeht, sein Leben dadurch verwirkt; wie viel mehr muss dem, der ein Gebot ausübt, sein Leben geschenkt werden. R. Simon sagt: Man kann Folgendes aus derselben Stelle entnehmen: Da es nämlich heißt (Lev. 18,29): „Es sollen ausgerottet werden die Personen, die tun u. s. w.“ und es heißt (Lev. 18, 5): „Die der Mensch tue, dass er durch sie lebe“; so folgt daraus, dass man dem, der da sitzt und keine Sünde begeht, ebenso einen Lohn gibt, wie dem, der ein Gebot ausübt. R. Simon, Sohn Rabbi’s, sagt: Es heißt (Deut. 12,23): „Sei nur stark, kein Blut zu essen, denn das Blut ist das Leben u. s. w.“; wenn schon beim Blute, vor dem es den Menschen ekelt, (gesagt wird:) wer sich davon fern hält, empfängt einen Lohn; wie viel mehr wird, wer von Raub und Blutschande, wozu das Gemüt des Menschen Lust und Begierde hat, sich fern hält, für sich, für seine Nachkommen und für die Nachkommen seiner Nachkommen, bis ans Ende aller Geschlechter, Verdienste erwerben.",
+ "R. Chananja, Sohn Akaschja’s, sagt: Der Heilige, gebenedeiet sei er, wollte Israel zur Gerechtigkeit führen; deshalb hat er ihm viele Lehren und Gebote erteilt, wie es heißt (Jes. 42,21): Der Ewige hat es gewollt um seiner Gerechtigkeit willen, dass er die Lehre groß und ausgedehnt mache."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83b3e7099a5b121c47a02fa84723814273446caa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Makkot",
+ "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/",
+ "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 1.0,
+ "license": "CC-BY",
+ "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה מכות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "How do witnesses become liable [to punishment] as perjurers?[If they say:] “We testify that so and so [a priest] is a son of a woman who had [formerly] been divorced or a haluzah,” it is not said that each witness should himself be as if he was born of a divorcee or a haluzah; rather he receives forty [lashes]. [If they say]: “We testify that so and so is guilty of [a crime entailing] exile”, it is not said that each witness should himself be exiled; rather he receives forty [lashes]. [If they say:] “We testify that so and so divorced his wife and has not paid her kethubah” seeing that either today or tomorrow he [the husband] will pay her kethubah, the assessment should be made how much a man will be willing to pay [now] for the ownership of her kethubah, on the condition that if she should be widowed or divorced [he will take it over] but if she should die, her husband will inherit her [estate including the kethubah]. [If they say]: “We testify that so and so owes his friend one thousand zuz on the condition that he will pay him within thirty days”, while the debtor says “ten years”, the assessment should be made how much a man is willing to pay for the use of a thousand zuz, whether he pays them in thirty days or ten years.",
+ "[If they say]: “We testify that so and so owes his friend two hundred zuz”, and they are found to be perjurers, they are flogged and ordered to make restitution, because the count which brings upon them the flogging is not the count that brings upon them the necessity to make restitution, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “Anyone who makes restitution is not flogged.”",
+ "[If they say:] “We testify that so and so is liable to a flogging of forty lashes, and they are found to be perjurers, they receive eighty lashes, because of, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:13) and “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuternomy 19:19), these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, “They receive only forty lashes.” Monetary impositions are shared among the offenders, but the lashes are not shared among the offenders. How so? If they testified that he owed his friend two hundred zuz, and they were found to be perjurers, they divide the corresponding damages proportionately between them. But if they testified that he was liable to a flogging of forty lashes and were found to be perjurers, each one receives forty lashes.",
+ "Witnesses are not condemned as perjurers until they themselves are incriminated; How so? If they said: “We testify that so and so killed a person” and others said to them: “How could you testify to that, as that murdered person or that [alleged] murderer was with us on that very day, at such and such a place?” [then] the witnesses are not condemned as perjurers. But, if these [other] witnesses said: “How could you testify to that, as on that very day, you were with us at such and such a place?’ [then] the former are condemned as perjurers, and are executed by their [the other witnesses] word.",
+ "If other witnesses came, and they charged them [with perjury]: then [again] others came, and they [again] charged them [with perjury], even a hundred, they are all to be executed. Rabbi Judah says: “This is a conspiracy and the first set alone is [to be] executed.”",
+ "Perjuring witnesses are not to be put to death until [after] the end of the trial. Because the Sadducees say: “[Perjurers were put to death] only after the accused had [actually] been executed, as it says, “ A life for a life” (Deuteronomy 19:21). The [Pharisaic] Sages said to them: “But has not it already been said “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuteronomy 19:19) which implies when his brother is still alive? If so, why does it say “A life for life”? For it might have been that perjurers are liable to be put to death from the moment their testimony had been taken, therefore the Torah states “A life for a life” that is to say that they are not executed until [after] the termination of the trial.",
+ "“A person shall be put to death only on the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6).If the testimony is sufficiently established by two witnesses, why does Scripture [further] specify three? This is to compare two to three: just as three are competent to incriminate two as perjurers, so are two competent to incriminate three as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. Rabbi Shimon says: “Just as two witnesses are not put to death until both have been incriminated as perjurers, so three are not put to death until all three have been incriminated as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. Rabbi Akiba says: “The third witness was only mentioned in order to be stringent upon him and make his judgement the same as the other two. And if Scripture thus penalizes one who consorts with those who commit a transgression, as [if he is actually] one of those who commits the transgression, how much more so shall he who consorts with those who perform commandments receive a reward as [if he is actually] one of those who performs the commandments!”",
+ "Just as in the case of two witnesses, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, their whole evidence is rendered void, so it is with three, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, the whole evidence is void. How do we know that this is the case even with a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. Rabbi Yose said: “When is this true? With regards to capital cases; but in monetary suits, the evidence may be established by the rest. Rabbi says: “It is one and the same rule, be it in monetary suits or capital cases.” This is the rule when both [disqualified] witnesses warned the trasngressor, but when they did not warn him, what could two brothers do that saw someone killing a person?",
+ "If two persons see him [the transgressor] from one window and two other persons see him from another window and one standing in the middle warns him, then, if some on one side and some on the other side can see one another, they constitute together one body of evidence, but if they cannot [see one another], they are two bodies of evidence. Consequently, if one of these is found to be a perjurer, both [the transgressor] and those two witnesses are put to death, while other group of witnesses is exempt. Rabbi Yose says: “He is never put to death unless two witnesses had warned him, as it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses..” (Deut. 17:6). Another interpretation: “By the mouth of two witnesses”: that the Sanhedrin shall not hear the evidence from the mouth of an interpreter.",
+ "If one fled after having been convicted at a court and again comes up before the same court, the [first] judgment is not set aside. Wherever two witnesses stand up and declare, “We testify that so and so was tried and convicted at a certain court and that so and so were the witnesses” the accused is executed. [Trials before] a sanhedrin are customary both in the land [of Israel] and outside it. A sanhedrin that executes once in seven years, is called murderous. Rabbi Eliezer b. Azariah Says: once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: “Had we been members of a sanhedrin, no person would ever be put to death. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel remarked: “They would also multiply murderers in Israel.”"
+ ],
+ [
+ "The following go into banishment: one who kills in error. If [for instance] while he was pushing a roller [on the roof] and it fell down and killed somebody; If while he was lowering a cask it fell down and killed somebody; If while coming down a ladder he fell on somebody and killed him, he goes into banishment. But, if while he was pulling up the roller it fell back and killed somebody; If while he was raising a cask and the rope snapped and the cask fell and killed somebody; If while going up a ladder he fell down and killed somebody, he does not go into banishment. This is the general principle: [whenever the death was caused] in the course of a downward movement, he goes into banishment, but [if it was caused] not in the course of a downward movement, he does not go into banishment. If the iron slipped from its heft and killed [somebody]: Rabbi says, “He does not go into banishment.” And the Sages say: “He goes into banishment.” If it flew from the log being split: Rabbi says, “He goes into banishment.” And the Sages say: “He does not go into banishment.”",
+ "If a man threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person, he goes into banishment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: “If after the stone had left his hand another person put out his head and caught it, the thrower is exempt [from banishment].” If a man threw a stone into his [own] court and killed a person, then, if the victim had a right of entry there, the thrower goes into banishment, and if not, he does not go into banishment, as it says, “As when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor” (Deut. 19:5): the forest is a domain accessible to the victim and to the slayer and it therefore excludes the court of the householder where the victim has no right of entry. Abba Shaul says: “Hewing of wood is an optional act and it therefore excludes a father beating his son, or a master disciplining his pupil, or an agent of the court [administering lashes].”",
+ "The father goes into banishment for [the death of] his son, and the son goes into banishment for [that of] his father. All go into banishment for [the death of] an Israelite, and Israelites go into banishment on their account, except for a resident alien. And a resident alien does not go into banishment except for [the death of another] resident alien. A blind person does not go into banishment, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “He goes into banishment.” An enemy does not go into banishment. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: “An enemy is executed, for it is as if he has been warned.” Rabbi Shimon says: “There is an enemy that goes into banishment and there is an enemy that does not go into banishment: wherever it can be said that he had killed [his victim] wittingly, he goes not into banishment, and where he had slain unwittingly, he goes into banishment.",
+ "To where are they banished? To the cities of refuge, to the three cities situated on the far side of the Jordan and the three cities situated in Canaan, as it says, “Three cities shall be designated beyond the Jordan, and the other three shall be designated in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 35:14). Not until three cities were selected in the land of Israel did the [first] three cities beyond the jordan receive fugitives, as it says, “Six cities of refuge in all” (Numbers 35:13), until all six could simultaneously receive fugitives.",
+ "And direct roads were made leading from one to the other, as it says, “You shall prepare the way and divide the borders of your land into three parts” (Deut. 19:3). And they delegate to him two disciples of the Sages [as escorts] in case anyone attempted to slay him on the way, and that they might speak to him. Rabbi Meir says: “He may [even] plead his cause himself, as it says, “And this is the word of the manslayer” (Deut. 19:4).",
+ "Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: “Initially a slayer is sent in advance to [one of] the cities of refuge, whether he had slain in error or with intent and then the court sends and brings him out. Whoever was found guilty of a capital crime the court had executed, and whoever was found not guilty of a capital crime they acquitted. Whoever was found liable to banishment they restored to his place [of refuge] as it says, “And the congregation shall restore him to the city of refuge to which he fled” (Numbers 35:25). All the same are [the deaths of] the high priest who had been anointed with the anointing oil; or had worn many garments, or had retired from his office all make possible the return of the manslayer. Rabbi Judah says also the [death of the] priest who had been anointed for war makes possible the return of the manslayer. Therefore, mothers of high priests would provide food and clothing for them [who had been exiled] that they might not pray for their son’s death. If the high priest died at the conclusion of the trial, the slayer does not go into banishment. If he died before the trial was concluded and another high priest was appointed in his stead and the trial was then concluded, the slayer returns [home from refuge only] after the latter’s death.",
+ "If the trial was concluded when there was no high priest [in office], or if one kills a high priest, or a high priest that kills, [in these cases the manslayer] can never come away from that place [of refuge]. He [the manslayer] may not go out to bear witness, neither for cases having to do with a religious observance, nor to bear witness in a monetary suit, nor to bear witness in a capital case. Even should [all] Israel need him, and even a general like Yoav the son of Zeruiah, he may never go out, as it is said, “to there he fled”: ‘there’ must be his abode, ‘there’ his death, ‘there’ his burial. Just as the city affords asylum so does its Sabbath boundary afford asylum. If a manslayer went beyond the boundary [of the city] and the blood avenger found him: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: “For the avenger it is a matter of obligation [to kill him]; for everyone else, a matter of option.” Rabbi Akiba says: “It is a matter of option for the avenger, and anyone else [who kills him] is not liable for doing so.” If a tree was standing within the boundary and its boughs extended beyond [the boundary] or if it was standing outside of the boundary and its boughs extended within, it wholly follows [the position of] the boughs. If he slew [someone] in that city [of refuge] he is banished from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. And a Levite is banished from one city to another.",
+ "A manslayer who went to his city of his refuge and the men of that city wished to do him honor, should [refuse] by saying to them, “I am a manslayer!”. If they say to him, “Nevertheless” he should accept from them [the proffered honor], as it is said: “and this is the word of the manslayer.” They used to pay rent to the Levites, according to the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “They did not pay them rent.” And [on his return home] he returns to the office he formerly held, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “He does not return to the office he formerly held.”"
+ ],
+ [
+ "And these are liable to be flogged:One who had relations with his sister, or his father's sister, or his mother's sister, or his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, or his father's brother's wife, or a menstruant; A high priest who marries a widow, an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee or a halutzah; An Israelite who marries a mamzereth or natinah, or an Israelite woman who is married to a mamzer or a natin. In the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a widow [a high priest] is liable on two counts. But in the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a halutzah, an ordinary priest is liable only on one count.",
+ "An unclean person who ate holy meat (Leviticus 7:20, 12:4); One who entered the sanctuary while unclean (Leviticus 12:4, Numbers 5:3, 19:13); One who ate forbidden fat or blood (Leviticus 3:16, 7:23-27); Or leftover sacrificial meats (Leviticus 19:6-8); Or sacrifices that had been offered up with improper intention (Leviticus 7:18); Or [an offering] that has became unclean (Leviticus 7:19); One who slaughters, or offers up a sacrifice, outside the Temple precincts (Leviticus 17:4); One who ate leavened [bread] during Passover (Exodus 12:15,; One who partakes of food [or drink] or does work on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27-31); One who puts together the ingredients for the [anointing] oil, or the ingredients for the incense, or anoints with the oil for anointing (Exodus 30:22-28): One who eats an animal that died a natural death (Deuteronomy 14:21); Or was improperly slaughtered (Exodus 22:30); Or any of the [creatures deemed] ‘abominable’ and ‘teeming’ (Leviticus 11:11,. One who eats non-tithed produce, or first-tithe from which heave offering has not been removed, or unredeemed second-tithe, or unredeemed sanctified property. How much untithed produce is one to eat to become liable? Rabbi Shimon says: “Any amount.” The Sages say: “An olive's size.” Rabbi Shimon said to them: “Do you not admit that if one ate the minutest ant that he would be liable? They said to him: “[Only] because it is a whole creature.” He said to them: “Even a grain of wheat is a whole entity.”",
+ "One who eats of first fruits previous to the recital over them (Deut. 26:3-10); Of most holy things outside of the Temple curtains (Exodus 27:9); Of lesser holy things or of second tithe, outside the city wall (Deut. 12:17-18). One who breaks a bone of a ritually clean Passover offering receives forty [lashes] (Exodus 12:46); But one who leaves over a clean [Passover offering] (Exodus 12:10), or breaks a bone of an unclean [Passover offering], is not given forty [lashes].",
+ "If one takes the mother bird with the young (Deuteronomy 22:6-7): Rabbi Judah says he is flogged and need not [then] send the mother free; But the Sages say: “He lets the mother go and is not flogged.” This is the general principle; any negative commandment which involves a positive deed, one is not liable (for transgressing over.",
+ "If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” And he is only liable if he takes off with a razor; Rabbi Eliezer says: “Even if he picks off the hairs with tweezers, or with pincers, he is liable.",
+ "He who writes an incision on his skin [is flogged]. If he writes [on his flesh] without incising, or incises without writing, he is not liable, until he writes and incises with ink, eye-paint or anything that lasts. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: “He is not liable until he has written there the name [of a god], as it is says: “Nor shall you incise any marks on yourselves; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).",
+ "If a nazirite has been drinking wine all day, he is liable for only one lashing. If they said to him, “Don’t drink wine”, “Don’t drink wine”, and he kept drinking, he is liable for each instance.",
+ "If he has been defiling himself for the dead all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not defile yourself! Do not defile yourself!” and he did defile himself [each time], he is liable on each instance. If he was shaving all day he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not shave, Do not shave” and he did shave [each time], he is liable on each instance. If he was wearing a garment of mixed linen and wool all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not put it on! Do not put it on!” and he takes it off and puts it on, he is liable on each instance.",
+ "It is possible for one to plough one furrow and become liable for eight prohibited acts: If he ploughs with an ox and donkey [yoked together] (2+3) and these were sanctified [animals], [the plough being drawn over] diverse mixed-seed sown] in a vineyard, during the sabbatical year, on a festival-day, [the plower being] a priest and a nazirite and the plot being situated on a defiled area. Hanania ben Hakinai says: “He may also have been wearing a garment mixed of wool and linen.” They said too him: “This is not of the same category.” He said to them: “Even the nazirite is not in the same category.”",
+ "How many lashes is he given? Forty save one, as it says, “By number forty” (Deuteronomy 25:2-3) which means, a number close to forty. Rabbi Judah says: “He is given forty [lashes] in full.” And where does he receive the additional lash? Between his shoulders.",
+ "When they estimate the number of lashes he can stand it must be a number divisible by three. If they estimated him capable of receiving forty, and after receiving some they said he cannot receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If they estimated him fit to receive eighteen, and after he was lashed they said he could receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If he committed a transgression which violated two prohibitions and they made one estimate [for the lashes for both prohibitions], he is lashed and then exempt [from more]. And if [they had] not [made one estimate for both], he is lashed [for one transgression], is allowed to recover and then is lashed again.",
+ "How do they lash him? His two hands are tied to a pillar on either side of it and the minister of the synagogue grabs his clothing, if they are torn, they are torn; if they are ripped open, they are ripped open, until he exposes the offender’s chest. And a stone is placed behind the offender, the minister of the synagogue stands on it, a strap of cowhide in his hands, doubled over into two, and redoubled, and two straps that rise and fall attached to it.",
+ "The handle is a handbreadth long and a handbreadth wide, its tip reaching to the edge of the [offender’s] abdomen. He administers one-third [of the lashes] in front and two-thirds behind. He lashes him not in a standing or sitting position but stooping, as it says, “And the judge shall cause him to fall [stoop] down” (Deut. 25:2). He who administers the lashes lashes with his one hand and with his whole force.",
+ "And the one who recites, says: “If you fail to observe faithfully all the terms of this Teaching…the Lord will inflict upon you extraordinary plagues (lashes)” (Deut. 25:58-59) And then (if time remains) he returns to the beginning of the section. [“Therefore observe faithfully all the terms of this covenant” (Deut. 28:9) and he completes by saying, “And He is merciful, forgiving iniquity” (Psalms 78:38).] If the offender dies under his hand, he is exempt [from penalty]. If he gave him one more lash and the offender died, he goes into banishment. If the offender befouled himself either with feces or urine, he is exempt. Rabbi Judah says: “Feces in the case of a man and [even] urine in the case of a woman.",
+ "All who have incurred [the penalty of] kareth, on being flogged are exempt from their punishment of kareth, for it says, “[He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more] ... lest your brother shall be dishonored before your eyes” (Deut. 25;3) once he has been lashed he is [considered] “your brother”, the words of Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel. Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel said: “Just as one who transgresses one transgression forfeits his life, how much more does one who performs one commandment have his life granted him.” Rabbi Shimon says: “You can learn this from its own passage; as it says: “[All who do any of those abhorrent things] such persons shall be cut off from their people” (Lev. 18:29), and it says: “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), which means that one who desists from transgressing is granted reward like one who performs a precept. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi says: Behold [the Torah] says, “But makes sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh…[that it may go well with you and with your descendents to come..” (Deut. 12:23-25”-- now, if in the case of blood which a person’s soul loathes, anyone who refrains from it receives reward, how much more so in regard to robbery and sexual sin for which a person’s soul craves and longs shall one who refrains from them acquire merit for himself and for generations and generations to come, to the end of all generations!",
+ "Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashia says: “The Holy Blessed One, desired to make Israel worthy, therefore He gave them much Torah [to study] and many commandments [to perform]: for it is says, “The Lord desires [his servant’s] vindication, that he may magnify and glorify [His] teaching” (Isaiah 42)."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/Open Mishnah.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/Open Mishnah.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c991cf4ec0248577c7c779a26b1420c55d39bbd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/Open Mishnah.json
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Makkot",
+ "versionSource": "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mishnah",
+ "versionTitle": "Open Mishnah",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "CC-BY-SA",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה פתוחה",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה מכות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [],
+ [],
+ [
+ "",
+ "",
+ "",
+ "",
+ "",
+ "One who tatoos: If he writes without engraving, or he engraves without writing, he is not liable for lashes, until he writes and engraves with ink or pigment or anything that leaves an impression. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah said in the name of Rebbi Shimon [bar Yochai]: He is not liable until he writes a name [of idolatry] there. As it says (Vayikra 19): \"Do not tatoo yourself, for I am G-d.\"",
+ "A Nazirite who drinks wine every day is only liable for one. If they said to him, \"Don't drink! Don't drink!\" and he drank, he is liable for each and every one.",
+ "",
+ "There is [the possibility that one could] plow only one furrow and become liable [on that account] for eight prohibited acts: [This is the case where] one (1) plows with an ox and a donkey [yoked together] (in violation of Deuteronomy 22:10) (2 and 3) that are [two animals] dedicated to the sanctuary, (4) [plowing] mixed seeds [sown] in a vineyard (in violation of Deuteronomy 22:9), (5) during a Sabbatical year (in violation of Leviticus 25:4), (6) on a Festival-day (in violation of, for example, Leviticus 23:7), (7) [when the plower is] a priest (in violation of Leviticus 21:1) (8) and a Nazirite (in violation of Numbers 6:6) plowing in a contaminated place. Chananya ben Chachinai says: Also he may have been wearing [while plowing] a garment of mixed [wool and linen] fabrics (in violation of Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11). They said to him: This is not in the same category [as the other violations]. He said to them: Neither is the Nazirite in the same category [as the other violations]."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e70188aa51a74e9d8ae39398ffc170c8c86465d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Makkot",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+ "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "CC0",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה מכות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "How do witnesses become [given the punishment due to] zomemin [scheming witnesses]? [If witnesses said,] \"We testify that such and such man [who was thought to be Kohen] is the son of a divorced woman\" or \"the son of a chalutzah [a women to whom levirate marriage has been declined],\" we do not say that [as punishment, each scheming witness] is designated as the son of a divorced woman or the son of a chalutzah in their place [the falsely accused]. Rather, [each scheming witness] is given forty lashes. [If witnesses said,] \"We testify that such and such man is liable to be exiled [to an Ir Miklat, City of Refuge, for accidentally killing somebody],\" we do not say that [each scheming witness] should be exiled in their place [the falsely accused]. Rather, [each scheming witness] is given forty lashes. [If witnesses said,] \"We testify that such and such man divorced his wife and has not given her her Ketubah [the sum promised in the event of death or divorce]\"; since in either way, he [the accused], will eventually give her, her Ketubah [because he will die or they will get divorced], we [therefore] assess how much a man would pay for this woman's Ketubah, given the chance that were she widowed or divorced [she would receive the money], whereas if she dies [before her husband] he inherits her [property, including the sum of the Ketubah]. [If witnesses said,] \"We testify that such and such a man owes his fellow one thousand zuz [specific unit of weight] to be repaid within thirty days,\" and he [the accused] says [he must repay his loan] within ten years, we assess how much one would be willing to pay to have in his hand one thousand zuz, [evaluating the difference] between [that quantity when the loan] is to be repaid within thirty days and [that quantity when the loan] is to be repaid within ten years. ",
+ "[Witnesses who say,] \"We testify that such and such a man owes his fellow two hundred zuz\" and are found to be zomemin, receive lashes and must pay [the amount they testified about], for the Biblical verse that brings upon them [the witnesses] lashes does brings upon them [the requirement to make] restitution. [This is]the view of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say, whoever makes restitution does not receive lashes.",
+ "[Witnesses who say,] \"We testify that such and such a man is liable [for a prohibition incurred] forty lashes\" and are found to be zomemin, receive eighty lashes, [forty] on account of [the verse,] \"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,\" (Exodus 20:12), and [forty] on account of \"Then shall you do unto him, as he had purposed to do.\" (Deuteronomy 19:19) [This is] the view of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say, they only receive forty lashes. Monetary [compensation] may be divided up, but lashes cannot be divided up. How so? If they testified that one owed his fellow two hundred zuz and were found to be zomemin, they may divide between themselves [the sum they owe to the one they conspired against]. But if they testified that he was liable [for a prohibition incurring] forty lashes and were found to be zomemin, each one of them incurres forty lashes.",
+ "Witnesses are not considered zomemin until they themselves are incriminated How so? [If the first pair of witnesses] said, \"We testify that such and such a man killed another person,\" and [another pair of witnesses] say to them, \"How can you testify [to this matter], for the one killed or the one [accused of] killing was with us on that day at such-and-such a place\",[the witnesses of the first pair] are not considered zomemin. But if [the second pair of witnesses] said, \"How can you testify [to this matter], for you were with us on that day at such-and-such a place\"—[the witnesses of the first pair] are considered zomemin, and are executed on account of their testimony [the second pair of witnesses' testimony].",
+ "If others [i.e. another pair of witnesses] come and are proven [a prior pair] to be zomemin, and [still] others come and prove them to be zomemin, even [if this occurs] one hundred [times], all of them are executed. Rabbi Yehudah says, this is a conspiracy, and only the first group [of witnesses] is executed.",
+ "Witnesses [found to be] zomemin are only executed after judgment has been rendered [i.e. after the verdict has been pronounced]. [This was done in opposition to the Sadducees], for the Sadducees say, [they are only executed] after the [falsely accused] has [already] been executed, for the verse says, \"a life for a life.\" (Deuteronomy 19:21) The Sages, [however countered and] said to them [the Sadducees], has not[the verse] already declared \" Then shall you do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother,\" (Deuteronomy 19:19) and his brother is still alive [after the verdict is pronounced, but before the falsely accused is executed]. If so, why does [the verse] say \"a life for a life\"? It would have been possible [to maintain] that they are [liable for] executed the moment their testimony has been accepted; [but] the verse says \"a life for a life,\" [from which we infer] that they are not killed until the judgment is rendered.",
+ "\"By the testimony of two or three witnesses [the perpetrator] shall surely be put to death.\" (Deuteronomy 17:6) If two witnesses [suffice to] establish testimony, why did the verse specify three witnesses? The Torah is making a correlation between three witnesses and two witnesses. Just as a group of three witnesses can make a group of two witnesses zomemin, so too a group of two witnesses can make a group of three witnesses zomemin. And from where do we know that a group of two witnesses can make a group of one hundred witnesses zomemin? The verse says [uses the termonolgy] \"witnesses\". Rabbi Shimon says: Just as two witnesses are not killed until both of them become zomemin so too three witnesses are not killed until all three of them are zomemin. And from where do we know that this is the case even for one hundred witnesses? The verse says [uses the termonolgy] \"witnesses\". Rabbi Akiva says: The third witness did not come [is not specified] to teach us to treat him more leniently but rather to make it more strict on him and to make his punishment like that of the others. That being so, that the Torah punishes those who assist transgressors like the actual transgressor, all the more so, those who assist in the performance of mitzvoth will be rewarded like those who actually perform the mitzvoth.",
+ "Just as if there were two [witnesses], and one was found to be a close relative or invalid, the entire testimony is invalidated, so too if there are three [witnesses] and one was found to be a close relative or invalid the entire testimony is invalidated. From where do we know [that this applies] even for one hundred [witnesses]? The verse states: \"witnesses\". Rabbi Yossi said: \"What case are we talking about? In capital cases, however in monetary cases the testimony is upheld by the others.\" Rebbe said: \"The law is the same for capital cases and monetary cases.\" And when is this? In a case when they warned [the perpetrator], however when they did not warn [the perpetrator], what can two brothers do who saw someone kill another person?",
+ "Should two [witnesses] see [the perpetrator] from one window and two [witnesses] see him from another window and one [witness] warns him, if they [the witnesses] have a partial view of each other they are considered as one set. If not, they are considered as two sets. Therefore if one pair is found to be zomemin [in a capital crime], both they and the accused will be executed, and the other pair is exempt. Rabbi Yossi says: \"They are never executed unless warned by two witnesses as it says : 'By the mouth of two witnesses.'\" (Deuteronomy 17:6) An alternate interpretation: \"By the mouth of two witnesses,\" [meaning] the court should not hear testimony from the mouth of a translator. ",
+ "If someone whose judgement was final [sentenced to death], and ran away but came back to the same Beit Din, we do not re-evaluate his old judgment. Any time that two witnesses came and say, \"We testify that this person had a judgement passed against him in a certain court,\" so and so were the witnesses, we execute him [the defendant on this testimony]. A Sanhedrin [highest court, charged with deciding cases and appeals that had national significance. It was comprised of 71 scholars who had received the full traditional rabbinical ordination, and its decisions fixed Jewish practice for subsequent generations]that would execute somebody once in seven years would be considered destructive. Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah says: \"Once in seventy years.\" Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva said: \"If we were on the Sanhedrin , nobody would have ever been executed.\" Rabban Shim'on Ben Gamliel said: \"They too would have increased violence in Israel.\""
+ ],
+ [
+ "The following are exiled [to the Ir Miklat]: one who kills a peron accidentally. If he was pushing a roller [on a roof] and it fell on him[a bystander] and killed him, or if he was lowering a barrel [from a roof] and it fell and killed him [a bystander], or if he was descending a ladder and he fell and killed him[a bystander], all of these cases he [the killer] is exiled. However, if he was pulling a roller and it fell and killed the person, or if he was raising a barrel and the rope tore and it fell and killed a person, or if he was climbing a ladder and he fell and killed a person, in these cases he [the killer] would not exiled. This is the principle: If the killer was involved in a downward movement , he is exiled. If it is not a downward movement he is not exiled. If the blade came off the handle and killed, Rebbi says he is not exiled but the Sages say he is exiled. If it came from the wood being chopped, Rebbi says he is exiled but the Sages say he is not exiled.",
+ "One who throws a rock into the public domain and it kills someone, he is exiled. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: if the person stuck his head into the public domain only after the stone left his [the killer's] hand, he is exempt. If he threw the stone into his courtyard and it killed, if the victim had permission to be there, he is exiled, but if he did not have permission, he is not exiled, as it says, \"If he comes upon his fellow in the woods...\" (Deuteronomy 19:5). Just as the woods is open to both the victim and the perpetrator to enter there, this excludes a privately owned courtyard where both the victim (and the perpetrator) does not have permission to be there. Aba Shaul says: Just as chopping wood is optional, [so too one is only exiled for optional activities] this excludes a father beating his son, a teacher disciplining his student, and the messenger of the courts.",
+ "A father can be exiled on account of (killing his) son and a son can be exiled on account of (killing his) father. All are exiled on account of (killing) an Israelite and an Israelite is exiled on account of (killing) them, except for a resident alien. A resident alien is only exiled on account of (killing) a resident alien. A blind person is not exiled, these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says he (a blind person is) exiled. A known enemy is not exiled. Rabbi Yose bar Yehuda says: a known enemy is killed because he is as one who is habitual. Rabbi Shimon says: some known enemies are exiled and some are not exiled. This is the general rule: anyone who we can say that he killed with intent is not exiled. If he killed without intent, he is exiled.",
+ "To where are they exiled? To the cities of refuge: Three on the east side of the Jordan River and three in the land of Canaan, as it says, \"Give three cities on this side of the Jordan and give three cities in the land of Canaan.\" (Numbers 35:14) Until the three were chosen in the land of Canaan, the three on the east side of the Jordan did not absorb [protect], as it says, \"These six cities\" (Numbers 35:15), until all six can absorb at the same time.",
+ "And roads were designated from one [city] to the next, as it says, \"Prepare the road and divide in thirds...\" (Deuteronomy 19:3). Two scholars were provided to them [the killer] lest they [the avenger] kill him on the road and they [the scholars] speak with him. Rabbi Meir says: He speaks for himself, as it says, \"And this is the matter/word of the murderer...\" (Deuteronomy 19:4)",
+ "Rabbi Yose bar Yehuda says: At the outset, both neglectful and purposeful arrive at the city of refuge. The court sends for them and takes him from there. One who is to be killed by the court, is executed, and the one who is to be exiled, they return him back to his place, as it says , \"The community will return him to his city of refuge.\"(Numbers 35:25) (The death of) one who is annointed with oil (the high priest) and one who has additional clothes (a step in becoming the high priest) and one who used to be anointed, return the killer (from the city of refuge to his city of origin). Rabbi Yehudah says: even one who is annointed for the purposes of war returns the killer. Therefore, the mothers of priests provided food and clothes (to the residents of cities of refuge), so they would not pray for their sons to die. If the high priest died after his judgment was rendered, he is not exiled. If the high priest died before his judgment was rendered and they appointed a new one and after that his judgment was rendered, he is returned [home] with the death of the second.",
+ "If his judgment is rendered without a high priest, or if he kills the high priest, or a high priest who kills, those never leave there (the city of refuge). And he may not leave in order to testify for an obligatory purpose or for a monetary case or for a capital case. Even if Israel needs him, even if the head of the military of Israel like Yoav ben Zeruiah, he may not ever leave there. As it says , \"Where he ran there\" (Numbers 35:25), there must be his residence, there must be his death, there must be his burial. Just as the city absorbs, so too its outskirts [2,000 cubits from the edge of the city] absorb. A killer who leaves the outskirts and the blood avenger (next of kin) finds him, Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: (killing him) is an obligation of the blood avenger and optional for anyone. Rabbi Akiva says: (killing him) is optional for the blood avenger and any person is not liable for it. A tree which stands in the outskirts and its branches stretch out of the outskirts or if the tree stands out of the outskirts and its branches stretch into the outskirts, the ruling is everything s determined according to its branches. If he kills in the same city [the city of refuge], he is exiled from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. A Levite [the cities of refuge was owned by the Levites] who kills is exiled from one city to another.",
+ "Similarly, a killer who was exiled to his city of refuge and the people of that city want to honor him, he should say to them, \"I am a killer.\" If they say \"Nevertheless\", he should accept it from them, as it says, \"This is the matter [words] of the killer.\" (Deuteronomy 19:4) They would pay rent to the Levites, these are the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: they do not pay them rent. (When he returns to his city of origin) he returns to the status [authority] that he had been, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: he would not return to the status that he had been."
+ ],
+ [
+ "In the following cases the punishment received is forty lashes: If one cohabitates with his sister, his father's sister, his mother's sister, wife's siter, his brother's wife, the wife of the father's brother, a woman during her menstrual cycle, a High Priest [cohabitates] with a widow, a common priest with a divorced woman or a woman who had chalitza performed on her, a mamzeret [an offspring from a prohibited union] or a netina [member of a caste of Temple servants, historically descended from the Gibeonites] to [cohabtates with] an ordinary Jew, a Jewish woman to [cohabitates with] a natin or a mamzer. [For] a widow and a divorcee, [a High Priest] is liable due to two prohibitions. [For] a divorcee and a chalutza, [an ordinary priest] is liable due to one prohibition alone. ",
+ "A ritually impure individual who eats sanctified property, one who enters the temple while ritually impure, one who eats forbidden fats, blood [from an animal], notar [meat from sacrifices which have been left over after their permitted eating period], pigul [sacrifices done with invalidating intentions], ritually impure [sacrifices], one who slaughters [sacrifices] or one offers them up outside [the temple], one who eats chamets [leavened grain products] on Passover, and one who eats or does work on Yom Kippur, one who manufactures the [anointing] oil, and one who manufactures the incense [used in the temple], one who anoints using the anointing oil, one who eats nevelah [improperly slaughtered animals] or treifah [an animal which will die within a year], insects and crawling creatures. One who eats tevel (produce which is yet to be appropriately tithed), or maaser rishon [the first tithe] which has not yet had its trumah (the portion which is given to a priest) separated, or maaser sheini [the second tithe] or sanctified property which have not been redeemed. How much must one eat from tevel in order to be culpable? R' Shimon says \"any amount\", and the Sages say \"the size of an olive\". R' Shimon said to them, \"Do you not agree that one who eats an ant as it is is culpable?\" They said to him, \"That is because it is an entire creation by itself.\" He [R' Shimon] said to them, \"One wheat grain is also a entire creation\".",
+ "One who eats first fruits before he has read [the mandated verses of [Bikkurim] on them, sacrifices [ Kodshei Kodashim] with higher sanctity outside the curtains [of the temple], sacrifices with standard sanctity [ Kodashim Kalim] or the second tithe outside the wall [of Jerusalem], One who breaks the bones of a ritually pure Passover sacrifice, one who does [any of] these is incurs forty [lashes]. But one who leaves over a pure [Passover sacrifice] until morning and one who breaks the bones of an impure [Passover sacrifice] does not incur forty [lashes].",
+ "One who takes a mother [bird] from her chicks, R' Yehuda says, \"He incurs lashes and does not need to send [the mother bird away].\" And the sages say, \"He sends [the mother bird away] and does not incur lashes.\" This is the rule: Any negative commandment that has a [positive] \"go and do\" [aspect to it], one is not culpable for [violating] it [by being punished with lashes].",
+ "One who balds his head, one who cuts the [hair] encircling the corners of his head, one who destroys the corners of his beard, and one who cuts [even] one cut [on himself] because of [mourning for] the dead, he is liable [for lashes]. If he made one cut because of [mourning for] five dead people, or five cuts because of [mourning for] one dead person, he is liable for each one. [For cutting] on his head, [he is liable] twice, one for one side and one for the other side [both sides of the head]. [For destroying] his beard, [he is liable] two for one side here and two for the other side and one at the bottom [the various corners of the face]. Rabbi Eliezer says, \"If they all were taken off in one [motion], he is only liable for one.\" And he is only liable for taking them off with a straight razor. Rabbi Eliezer says, \"Even with tweezers or pincers, he is liable.",
+ "One who \"imprints\" a tattoo, if he writes without perforating himself, or he perforates himself without writing, he is not liable for lashes, until he writes and perforates himself with ink or pigment or anything that leaves an impression. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah said in the name of Rebbi Shimon [bar Yochai]: He is not liable until he writes a name [of an idol] there. As it says, \"A tattoo should not be placed on yourselves, I am G-d.\" (Vayikra 19:28)",
+ "A Nazir [a person who has sworn to abstain from alcohol related items, haircuts and impurity] who drinks wine all day is only liable for one[ transgression]. If they said to him, \"Don't drink! Don't drink!\" and he drank, he is liable for each and every one [warning].",
+ "If he [a nazir] made himself impure [by coming in contact with a corpse] all day, he is only liable for one [transgression]. If they said to him, \"Don't become impure! Don't become impure!\" and he became impure, he is liable for each and every one [warning]. If he cut his hair all day, he is only liable for one[transgression]. If they said to him, \"Don't cut [your hair]! Don't cut [your hair]!\" and he cut, he is liable for each and every one [warning]. If one wore shaatnez [clothes made from wool and linen woven together] all day, he is only liable for one [transgression]. If they said to him, \"Don't wear! Don't wear!\" and he undressed and dressed, he is liable for each and every one [warning].",
+ "There is [the possibility that one could] plow only one furrow and become liable [on that account] for eight prohibited acts: [This is the case where] one plows with an ox and a donkey [yoked together], they [the animals] are sanctified, he is planting Kilayim [mixture of seeds] in a vineyard, during a Sabbatical year, on a Festival-day, he [the planter] is both a a priest and nazir [planting] in contaminated place [i.e. a cemetery]. Chananya ben Chachinai says: [There is a possibility for a ninth transgression] If he is wearing [while plowing] a garment made of Kilayim [a garment woven with wool and linen] . They [the Sages] said to him: This is not in the same category [as the other violations]. He [Chananya] said to them: Neither is the Nazirite in the same category [as the other violations].",
+ "How many lashes does one incur? Forty minus one [thirty nine] As the verse says \"...by number. Forty...\" (Deuteronomy 25:2-3) [the] number that immediately precedes [the number] forty. R' Yehuda says \"[he is lashed with] a total of forty lashes\". And where is the extra lash administered? Between his shoulders.",
+ "[When we assess how many lashes he can take,] we only assess him with lashes that can be divided in thirds. [If] they assessed him to be able to receive forty [lashes], and they gave him some of the lashes and then they said \"he is unable to receive forty\", he is exempt [from the rest]. [If] they assessed him to be able to receive eighteen and after they lashed him [the eighteen] they said \"he is able to receive forty\", he is exempt [from receiving any more]. [If] he transgressed a transgression that involved two violations [each of which he'd be culpable forty lashes] and they gave him one assessment [for both], he gets lashed and is exempt [from receiving any more]. And if not [they only assessed him for one violation], he is lashed, allowed to heal, returns and is lashed [again].",
+ "How do they lash him? His two hands are bound on each side of the column and the administer grabs his clothing [pulling them away from the area to be lashed]. If they [the clothing] are torn, they are torn [so be it] and if they become unstitched, they are unstitched [so be it], until his heart [chest] is uncovered. And a stone is placed behind him, and the administrator stands on it. And a strap of calfskin is in his hand, doubled over once into two [straps] and a second time into four [straps] and there are two [other] straps going up and down with it.",
+ "The [strap's] handle is a hand-breadth [long] and it [the strap] is a handbreadth wide and its tip reaches to the mouth [beginning] of his stomach. And he lashes him one third [of the lashes] in his front and two thirds on his back. He lashes him neither standing nor sitting rather leaning over, as the verse says, \"and the judge shall cause him to lie\"(Deuteronomy 25:2). And the one who hits [the administrator] hits with one hand and with all his strength.",
+ "The reader would read, \"If you do not keep the commandments... God will increase your beatings and the beatings of your children...\"(Deuteronomy 28:58-59) and (if he finished) he would go back [repeat] to the beginning of the verses. \"And you shall keep the words of this covenant\" (Deuteronomy 29:9) and he concludes \"The all-merciful one who forgives sin...(Psalms 78:38) and if he finishes he goes back to the beginning. If he [the one being lashed] died at his hand [while being lashed], the administrator is not responsible for his death. If the administrator added an extra strap [lash to the assessment] and he died, he[the administrator] is sent into exile. If he [the one being lashed] soiled himself with excrement or urine he [the administrator] is exempt from further lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says, the man [is only exempt if he soils himself] with excrement, but a woman [is exempt even if she soils herself] with urine. ",
+ "A man who transgressed a sin whose punishment is karet [punishment by premature death] but received lashes, is absolved from karet, as the verse states \"And your brother will be demeaned before you, (Deuteronomy 25:3)\" once he has been demeaned he becomes like your brother, so says Rabbi Chanania ben Gamliel. Rabbi Chanania ben Gamliel also stated: If someone could lose their life for committing just one sin, one who keeps one commandment, how much more so his life will be rewarded to him. Rabbi Shimon says, We [do not need the kal vachomer to learn this] can learn it from its place [context], as it says \"They [the person performing incest] will have their soul cut off\" (Leviticus 18:5) and it says [at the beginning of the verse \"Which man shall carry out and by which he shall live.\" From this [we learn] that whoever just sits and commit no sin, is given a reward like the one who fulfilled a commandment. Rabbi Shimon bar Rebbi says, the verse states \"Be strong to not eat blood because blood is the life force.\" (Deuteronomy 12:23) Now, if blood, which a person is naturally disgusted by, one who refrains from eating it receives a reward, one who refrains from stealing and illicit relationships, which one craves lusts for , how much more so he will earn merit for him and the generations after him till the end of time.",
+ "Rabbi Chananaia son of Akashia stated, God wanted to grant merits to Israel, therefore he gave them many laws and commandments as it states, \"Because God wants righteousness he increased the amount of Torah and splendor.\" (Isaiah 42:21)."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15fc94fc04f1e2c22594a24e9254b649709cc5ae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Makkot",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001042448/NLI",
+ "versionTitle": "Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de]",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 0.25,
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+ "actualLanguage": "de",
+ "languageFamilyName": "german",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה מכות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "IN WELCHEN FÄLLEN WERDEN DIE ZEUGEN ÜBERFÜHRTE FALSCHZEUGEN? SAGTEN SIE: WIR BEKUNDEN, DASS JENER PRIESTER DER SOHN EINER GESCHIEDENEN ODER DER SOHN EINER ḤALUÇA IST, SO SAGE MAN NICHT, DASS DER ZEUGE AN SEINER STELLE ALS SOHN EINER GESCHIEDENEN ODER EINER ḤALUÇA ERKLÄRT WERDE, VIELMEHR ERHÄLT ER DIE VIERZIG STREICHE. SAGTEN SIE : WIR BEKUNDEN, DASS JENER MANN SICH DER VERBANNUNG SCHULDIG GEMACHT HAT, SO SAGE MAN NICHT, DASS DER ZEUGE AN SEINER STELLE IN DIE VERBANNUNG GEHE, VIELMEHR ERHÄLT ER DIE VIERZIG STREICHE. SAGTEN SIE: WIR BEKUNDEN, DASS JENER SIGH VON SEINER FRAU SCHEIDEN LIESS UND IHR IHRE MORGENGABE NICHT AUSGEZAHLT HAT, – HEUTE ODER MORGEN MUSS ER IHR SIE JA AUSZAHLEN, – SO SCHÄTZE MAN, WIEVIEL JEMAND GEBEN WÜRDE FÜR IHRE MORGENGABE, DIE ER NUR DANN ERHÄLT, WENN SIE VERWITWET ODER GESCHIEDEN WIRD, WÄHREND, WENN SIE STIRBT, IHR EHEMANN SIE BEERBT. SAGTEN SIE: WIR BEKUNDEN, DASS DIESER JENEM TAUSEND ZUZ SCHULDET, MIT DER VEREINBARUNG, SIE INNERHALB DREISSIG TAGEN ZU BEZAHLEN, WÄHREND DER BEKLAGTE SAGT: INNERHALB ZEHN JAHREN, SO SCHÄTZE MAN DIE ZINSDIFFERENZ ZWISCHEN EINEM DARLEHEN VON TAUSEND ZUZ AUF DREISSIG TAGE UND EINEM SOLCHEN AUF ZEHN JAHRE.",
+ "WENN SIE GESAGT HABEN : WIR BEKUNDEN, DASS JENER SEINEM NÄCHSTEN ZWEIHUNDERT ZUZ SCHULDE, UND ALS FALSCHZEUGEN ÜBERFÜHRT WURDEN, SO WERDEN SIE GEGEISSELT UND MÜSSEN BEZAHLEN, DENN NICHT DIE VORSCHRIFT, DIE SIE ZUR GEISSELUNG BRINGT, BRINGT SIE ZUR ZAHLUNG – SO R. MEÍR; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, WER ZAHLEN MUSS, IST NICHT ZU GEISSELN.",
+ "WENN SIE GESAGT HABEN : WIR BEKUNDEN, DASS JENER DER VIERZIG STREICHE SCHULDIG IST, UND ALS FALSCHZEUGEN ÜBERFÜHRT WURDEN, SO ERHALTEN SIE ACHTZIG STREICHE, WEGEN :du sollst nicht wider deinen Nächsten als falscher Zeuge aussagen, UND WEGEN :SO sollt ihr an ihm das tun, was er gedacht hat – so R. MEÍR; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, SIE ERHALTEN NUR VIERZIG STREICHE. MAN TEILT DIE GELDSTRAFE, NICHT ABER DIE GEISSELUNG, UND ZWAR: HABEN SIE GEGEN JEMAND BEKUNDET, ER SCHULDE SEINEM NÄCHSTEN ZWEIHUNDERT ZUZ, UND WURDEN ALS FALSCHZEUGEN ÜBERFÜHRT, SO WIRD DIESE SUMME UNTER IHNEN GETEILT; WENN SIE ABER GEGEN EINEN BEKUNDET HABEN, ER HABE SICH DER VIERZIG STREICHE SCHULDIG GEMACHT, UND ALS FALSCHZEUGEN ÜBERFÜHRT WURDEN, SO ERHÄLT JEDER DIE VIERZIG STREICHE.",
+ "DIE ZEUGEN WERDEN NUR DANN ALS FALSCHZEUGEN ERKLÄRT, WENN SIE DURCH IHRE EIGENE PERSON ÜBERFÜHRTWERDEN; UND ZWAR: WENN SIE GESAGT HABEN: WIR BEKUNDEN, DASS DIESER EINEN MENSCHEN GETÖTET HAT, UND ANDERE ZEUGEN IHNEN ENTGEGNEN: WIESO KÖNNT IHR DIES BEKUNDEN, AN JENEM TAGE WAR JA DER ANGEBLICH ERMORDETE, BEZIEHUNGSWEISE MÖRDER MIT UNS ZUSAMMEN AN JENEM ORTE, SO GELTEN SIE NICHT ALS ÜBERFÜHRTE FALSCHZEUGEN. WENN SIE IHNEN ABER ENTGEGNEN: WIESO KÖNNT IHR DIES BEKUNDEN, AN JENEM TAGE WART IHR JA MIT UNS ZUSAMMEN AN JENEM ORTE, SO GELTEN SIE ALS ÜBERFÜHRTE FALSCHZEUGEN UND WERDEN AUF GRÜND DIESER AUSSAGE HINGERICHTET.",
+ "KOMMEN DARAUF ANDERE ZEUGEN UND SIE ÜBERFÜHREN AUCH DIESE, ANDERE UND SIEÜBERFÜHREN AUCH DIESE, SELBST WENN ES HUNDERT SIND, SO WERDEN SIE ALLE HINGERICHTET. R. JEHUDA SAGT, DIES SEI EINE VERABREDUNG; VIELMEHR WIRD NUR DIE ERSTE ZEUGENPARTIE HINGERICHTET.",
+ "DIE FALSCHZEUGEN WERDEN NUR DANN HINGERICHTET, WENN AUF IHRE AUSSAGE HIN DAS URTEIL BEREITS GEFÄLLT WORDEN IST. DIE SADUZÄER SAGTEN, NUR DANN, WENN DER BESCHULDIGTE HINGERICHTET WORDEN IST, DENN ES HEISST:Leben um Leben. DIE WEISEN ENTGEGNETEN IHNEN: ES HEISST: so sollt ihr mit ihm das tun, was er mit seinem Bruder zu tun gedacht hat, WENN SEIN BRUDER NOCH LEBT. WESHALB ABER HEISST ES: Leben um Leben? MAN KÖNNTE NÄMLICH GLAUBEN, SIE SEIEN HINZURICHTEN, SOBALD IHR ZEUGNIS ANGENOMMEN WORDEN IST, SO HEISST ES: Leben um Leben, SIE SIND NUR DANN HINZURICHTEN, WENN DAS URTEIL BEREITS GEFÄLLT WORDEN IST.",
+ "Auf die Aussage zweier Zeugen oder dreier Zeugen hin soll der Beschuldigte getötet werden. WENN DAS ZEUGNIS DURCH ZWEI BESTÄTIGT WIRD, WOZU SPRICHT DIE sCHRIFT VON DREI? dASS MAN ZWEI DREIEN GLEICHSTELLE: WIE DREI ZWEI ALS FALSCHZEUGEN ÜBERFÜHREN KÖNNEN, EBENSO KÖNNEN AUCH ZWEI DREI ALS FALSCHZEUGEN ÜBERFÜHREN. UND WOHER, DASS AUCH HUNDERT? ES HEISST: Zeugen. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGTE: WIE ZWEI NUR DANN HINZURICHTEN SIND, WENN BEIDE ALS FALSCHZEUGEN ÜBERFÜHRT WORDEN SIND, EBENSO SIND AUCH DREI NUR DANN HINZURICHTEN, WENN ALLE DREI ALS FALSCHZEUGEN ÜBERFÜHRT WORDEN SIND. UND WOHER, DASS AUCH HUNDERT? ES HEISST: Zeugen. R. A͑QIBA SAGTE: VOM DRITTEN IST NUR DESHALB DIE REDE, AUF DASS MAN MIT IHM EBENSO STRENG VERFAHRE WIE MIT DEN ANDEREN. WENN NUN DIE SCHRIFT DEN SICH ÜBELTÄTERN ANSCHLIESSENDEN EBENSO BESTRAFT, WIE DIE ÜBELTÄTER SELBST, UM WIEVIEL MEHR WIRD SIE DEN SICH ÜBENDEN GOTTGEFÄLLIGER HANDLUNGEN ANSCHLIESSENDEN EBENSO BELOHNEN, WIE DIE ÜBENDEN GOTTGEFÄLLIGER HANDLUNGEN SELBST. WIE FERNER DAS ZEUGNIS UNGÜLTIG IST, WENN VON ZWEIEN EINER ALS VERWANDT ODER ALS ZEUGE UNZULÄSSIGBEFUNDEN WIRD, EBENSO IST DAS ZEUGNIS UNGÜLTIG, WENN VON DREIEN EINER ALS VERWANDT ODER ALS ZEUGE UNZULÄSSIG BEFUNDEN WIRD.",
+ "WOHER, DASS DIES AUCH VON HUNDERT GILT? ES HEISST: Zeugen. R. JOSE SAGTE: DIES GILT NUR VON TODESSTRAFSACHEN, BEI GELDANGELEGENHEITEN ABER WIRD DAS ZEUGNIS DURCH DIE ÜBRIGEN BESTÄTIGT. RABBI SAGTE: SOWOHL BEI GELDANGELEGENHEITEN ALS AUCH BEI TODESSTRAFSACHEN; JEDOCH NUR DANN, WENN SIE MITGEWARNT HABEN, HABEN SIE ABER NICHT MITGEWARNT: WAS KÖNNEN ZWEI BRÜDER TUN, WENN SIE GESEHEN HABEN, WIE JEMAND EINEN MENSCHEN ERSCHLAGEN HAT!?",
+ "WENN ZWEI ZEUGEN IHN AUS DIESEM FENSTER UND ZWEI ANDERE AUS EINEM GEGENÜBER LIEGENDEN FENSTER GESEHEN HABEN, UND EINER IN DER MITTE IHN GEWARNT HAT, SO GELTEN SIE, WENN EIN TEIL VON DIESEM EINEN TEIL VOM ANDEREN SEHEN KONNTE, ALS EINE ZEUGENPARTIE, WENN ABER NICHT, SO GELTEN SIE ALS ZWEI PARTIEN. WENN DAHER DIE EINEN ALS FALSCHZEUGEN ÜBERFÜHRT WERDEN, SO WERDEN SIE UND ER HINGERICHTET, WÄHREND DIE ANDEREN FREISIND. R. JOSE SAGT, ER KÖNNE NUR DANN HINGERICHTET WERDEN, WENN BEIDE ZEUGEN IHN GEWARNT HABEN, DENN ES HEISST :durch den Mund zweier Zeugen. EINE ANDERE ERKLÄRUNG: Durch den Mund zweier Zeugen, DAS SYNEDRIUM DARF DIE AUSSAGE NICHT AUS DEM MUNDE EINES DOLMETSCHERS HÖREN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND NACH SEINER ABURTEILUNG ENTFLOHEN UND WIEDERUM VOR DASSELBE GERICHT GEBRACHT WORDEN IST, SO WIRD DIE VERURTEILUNG NICHT AUFGEHOBEN. WENN ZWEI ZEUGEN, WO ES AUCH IST, AUFTRETEN UND ÜBER EINEN BEKUNDEN, ER SEI VON JENEM GERICHTE ZUM TODE VERURTEILT WORDEN, UND DIESER UND JENER WAREN SEINE BELASTUNGSZEUGEN, SO WIRD ER HINGERICHTET. DAS SYNEDRIUM IST KOMPETENT SOWOHL IM LANDEALS AUCH AUSSERHALB DES LANDES. EIN SYNEDRIUM, DAS EINMAL IN EINEM SEPTENNIUM EINE HINRICHTUNG VOLLZIEHT, HEISST EIN VERDERBENBRINGENDES; R. ELIE͑ZER B. A͑ZARJA SAGT, EINMAL IN SIEBZIG JAHREN. R. TRYPHON UND R. A͑QIBA SAGTEN: WENN WIR IM SYNEDRIUM SASSEN, WÜRDE NIE EIN MENSCH HINGERICHTET WORDEN SEIN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGTE : DIESE MEHREN AUCH DAS BLUTVERGIESSEN."
+ ],
+ [
+ "FOLGENDE MÜSSEN IN DIE VERBANNUNG: WER UNVORSÄTZLICH EINEN MENSCHEN GETÖTET HAT. WENN JEMAND EINE WALZE SCHIEBT UND SIE AUF EINEN FÄLLT UND IHN TÖTET, ODER EIN FASS HERABLÄSST UND ES AUF EINEN FÄLLT UND IHN TÖTET, ODER VON EINER LEITER HERABSTEIGT UND AUF EINEN FÄLLT UND IHN TÖTET, SO MUSS ER IN DIE VERBANNUNG; WENN ABER JEMAND EINE WALZE ZIEHT UND SIE AUF EINEN FÄLLT UND IHN TÖTET, ODER EIN FASS HERAUFZIEHT UND DER STRICK REISST UND ES AUF EINEN FÄLLT UND IHN TÖTET, ODER AUF EINE LEITER STEIGT UND AUF EINEN FÄLLT UND IHN TÖTET, SO WIRD ER NIGHT VERBANNT. DIE REGEL HIERBEI IST: WENN BEIM NIEDERLASSEN, SO MUSS ER IN DIE VERBANNUNG, WENN NICHT BEIM NIEDERLASSEN, SO MUSS ER NICHT IN DIE VERBANNUNG. WENN DAS EISEN VOM STIELE ABGLEITET UND JEMAND TÖTET, SO MUSS ER, WIE RABBI SAGT, NICHT IN DIE VERBANNUNG, UND WIE DIE WEISEN SAGEN, IN DIE VERBANNUNG; WENN ESABER VOM ZU SPALTENDEN HOLZE ZURÜCKPRALLT, SO MUSS ER, WIE RABBI SAGT, IN DIE VERBANNUNG, UND WIE DIE WEISEN SAGEN, NICHT IN DIE VERBANNUNG. ",
+ "WENN JEMAND EINEN STEIN AUF ÖFFENTLICHES GEBIET GEWORFEN UND DIESER EINEN GETÖTET HAT, SO MUSS ER IN DIE VERBANNUNG. R. ELIE͑ZER B.JA͑QOB SAGTE: WENN NACHDEM DER STERN AUS SEINER HAND GEKOMMEN WAR, JENER SEINEN KOPF HERVORGESTRECKT HAT UND GETROFFEN WURDE, SO IST ER FREI. WENN JEMAND EINEN STEIN IN SEINEN EIGENEN HOF GEWORFEN UND DIESER EINEN GETÖTET HAT, SO MUSS ER, WENN DER BESCHÄDIGTE DA HINEINZUGEHEN BEFUGT WAR, IN DIE VERBANNUNG, WENN ABER NICHT, SO MUSS ER NICHT IN DIE VERBANNUNG, DENN ES HEISST:wenn einer mit seinem Nächsten in den Wald geht; WIE IN DEN WALD SOWOHL DER BESCHÄDIGTE ALS AUCH DER BESCHÄDIGENDE HINEINZUGEHEN BEFUGT IST, EBENSO AUCH SONST, WENN SOWOHL DER BESCHÄDIGTE ALS AUCH DER BESCHÄDIGENDE DA HINEINZUGEHEN BEFUGT IST; aUSGENOMMEN IST DER PRIVATE HOF, IN DEN HINEINZUGEHEN NTCHT JEDER BEFUGT IST. ABBA ŠAÚL SAGTE: NUR WENN DIE HANDLUNG GLEICH DEM HOLZHAUEN EINE FREIGESTELLTE IST, AUSGENOMMEN IST EIN VATER, DER SEINEN SOHN PRÜGELT, EIN LEHRER, DER SEINEN SCHÜLER ZÜCHTIGT, UND EIN GERICHTSDIENER.",
+ "DER VATER MUSS WEGEN SEINES SOHNESUND DER SOHN MUSS WEGEN SEINES VATERS IN DIE VERBANNUNG. JEDERMANN MUSS WEGEN EINES JISRAÉLITEN IN DIE VERBANNUNG, UND EIN JISRAÉLIT WEGEN EINES SOLCHEN, ABER NICHT WEGEN EINES BEISASSPROSELYTEN ; EIN BEISASSPROSELYT MUSS (NUR) WEGEN EINES BEISASSPROSELYTEN IN DIE VERBANNUNG. EIN BLINDER MUSS NICHT IN DIE VERBANNUNG – so R. JEHUDA; R. MEÍR SAGT, ER MÜSSE IN DIE VERBANNUNG. EIN FEIND MUSS NICHT IN DIE VERBANNUNG. R. JOSE B. JEHUDA SAGT, EIN FEIND WERDE HINGERICHTET, WEIL ER ALS GEWARNT GILT. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGTE: MANCHER FEIND MUSS IN DIE VERBANNUNG UND MANCHER MUSS NICHT IN DIE VERBANNUNG; DIE REGEL HIERBEI IST: WENN ANZUNEHMEN IST, ER HABE IHN ABSICHTLICH GETÖTET, SO KOMMT ER NICHT IN DIE VERBANNUNG; ER HABE IHN UNABSICHTLICH GETÖTET, SO MUSS ER IN DIE VERBANNUNG.",
+ "WOHIN KOMMEN SIE IN DIE VERBANNUNG? – IN DIE ZUFLUCHTSSTÄDTE, DREI JENSEITS DES JARDEN UND DREI IM LANDE KENAA͑N, DENN ES HEISST:drei Städte sollt ihr jenseits des Jarden hergehen und drei Städte sollt ihr im Lande Kenaa͑n hergeben &c. SOLANGE DIE DREI IM JISRAÉLLANDE NOCH NICHT GEWÄHLT WAREN, GEWÄHRTEN AUCH DIE DREI JENSEITS DES JARDEN KEINE ZUFLUCHT, DENN ES HEISST:sechs Zufluchts-städte sollen es sein, ALLE SECHS MUSSTEN GLEICHZEITIG EINE ZUFLUCHT GEWÄHREN KÖNNEN.",
+ "VON EINER NACH DER ANDERENWAREN STRASSEN ERRICHTET, DENN ES HEISST :Setze den Weg in stand und dreiteile es &c. MAN GIBT IHMZWEI SCHRIFTGELEHRTE MIT, DAMIT SIE, WENN DER BLUTRÄCHER IHN UNTERWEGS TÖTEN WILL, AUF DIESEN EINREDEN. R. MEÍR SAGT, ER SELBER REDE AUF IHN EIN, DENN ES HEISST:dies ist das Wort des Totschlägers.",
+ "R. JOSE B. JEHUDA SAGTE: ZUNÄCHST EILEN SOWOHL DER UNVORSÄTZLICHE ALS AUCH DER VORSÄTZLICHE TOTSCHLÄGER IN DIE ZUFLUCHTSSTADT, UND DARAUF LÄSST DAS GERICHT IHN VON DORT HOLEN; WER ZUR TODESSTRAFE DURCH DAS GERICHT VERURTEILT WIRD, WIRD HINGERICHTET, WER NICHT ZUR TODESSTRAFE VERURTEILT WIRD, WIRD ENTLASSEN, UND WER ZUR VERBANNUNG VERURTEILT WIRD, WIRD ZURÜCK NACH SEINER STÄTTE GEBRACHT. DENN ES HEISST :und die Gemeinde soll ihn in seine Zufluchtsstadt zurückbringen &c. SOWOHL DER MIT SALBÖL GESALBTE HOCHPRIESTER, ALS AUCH DER DURCH DIE AMTSKLEIDUNGGEWEIHTE, ALS AUCH DER PROVISORISCHE HOCHPRIESTER, WIE R. JEHUDA SAGT, AUCH DER FELDPRIESTER, VERANLASSEN DIE RÜCKKEHR DES TOTSCHLÄGERS. DAHER PFLEGEN DIE MÜTTER DER HOCHPRIESTER DIE TOTSCHLÄGER MIT NAHRUNG UND KLEIDUNG ZU VERSORGEN, DAMIT SIE NICHT BETEN, DASS IHRE SÖHNE STERBEN MÖGEN. STIRBT DER HOCHPRIESTER NACH SEINER VERURTEILUNG, SO MUSS ER NICHT IN DIE VERBANNUNG; WENN ABER DER HOCHPRIESTER VOR SEINER VERURTEILUNG STIRBT UND EIN ANDERER AN SEINER STELLE EINGESETZT UND ER DARAUF VERURTEILT WIRD, SO KEHRE ER BEIM TODE DES ZWEITEN HEIM.",
+ "WENN BEI SEINER VERURTEILUNG KEIN HOCHPRIESTER DA WAR, ODER WENN EIN HOCHPRIESTER JEMAND GETÖTET HAT, SO KANN ER SEINE ZUFLUCHTSSTADT NIEMALS VERLASSEN. ER DARF SIE NICHT VERLASSEN, UM ZEUGNIS ABZULEGEN IN EINER GOTTGEFÄLLIGEN HANDLUNG, AUCH NICHT, UM ZEUGNIS ABZULEGEN IN GELDSACHEN, AUCH NICHT, UM ZEUGNIS ABZULEGEN IN TODESSTRAFSACHEN; UND SOGAR WENN GANZ JISRAÉL SEINER BEDARF, UND SELBST WENN ER EIN FELDHERR IST WIE JOÁB, DER SOHN DER ÇERUJA, DARF ER SIE NIEMALS VERLASSEN, DENN ES HEISSTdort, DORT WOHNE ER, DORT STERBE ER UND DORT WERDE ER BEGRABEN. WIE DIE STADT SELBER ZUFLUCHT GEWÄHRT, EBENSO GEWÄHRT AUCH IHR GANZES GRENZGEBIET ZUFLUCHT. WENN DER TOTSCHLÄGER DAS GRENZGEBIET VERLÄSST UND DER BLUTRÄCHER IHN TRIFFT, SO IST ES, WIE R. JOSE DER GALILÄER SAGT, DIESEM GEBOTEN, IHN ZU TÖTEN, JEDEM ANDEREN STEHT DIES FREI. R. A͑QIBA SAGT, DIES STEHE DEM BLUTRÄCHER FREI, UND JEDER ANDERE SEI DIESERHALB NICHT STRAFBAR. WENN EIN BAUM INNERHALB DES GRENZGEBIETES STEHT UND DIE KRONE SICH NACH AUSSERHALB NEIGT, ODER WENN ER AUSSERHALB DES GRENZGEBIETES STEHT UND DIE KRONE SICH NACH INNERHALB NEIGT, SO RICHTE MAN SICH STETS NACH DER KRONE. HAT ER IN DIESER STADTGETÖTET, SO GEHE ER IN DIE VERBANNUNG AUS EINEM REVIERNACH EINEM ANDEREN. EIN LEVITEGEHE IN DIE VERBANNUNG AUS EINER STADT NACH EINER ANDEREN.",
+ "DESGLEICHEN AUCH, WENN EIN TOTSCHLÄGER IN EINE ZUFLUCHTSSTADT IN DIE VERBANNUNG GEHT, UND DIE LEUTE DER STADT IHM EHRUNG ERWEISEN WOLLEN, SO SAGE ER ZU IHNEN: ICH BIN EIN TOTSCHLÄGER. WENN SIE IHM ABER ERWIDERN : DENNOCH, SO NEHME ER SIE VON IHNEN AN, DENN ES HEISST:dies ist das Wort des Totschlägers. SIEMUSSTEN DEN LEVITENMIETE ZAHLEN – so R. JEHUDA ; R. MEÍR SAGT, SIE BRAUCHTEN IHNEN KEINE MIETE ZU ZAHLEN. NACHHERKOMMT ER IN SEIN FRUHERES AMT ZURÜCK – so R. MEÍR; R. JEHUDA SAGT, ER KOMMT NICHT IN SEIN FRÜHERES AMT ZURÜCK."
+ ],
+ [
+ "FOLGENDE SIND ZU GEISSELN: WER SEINE SCHWESTER, DIE SCHWESTER SEINES VATERS, DIE SCHWESTER SEINER MUTTER, DIE SCHWESTER SEINER FRAU, DIE FRAU SEINES BRUDERS, DIE FRAU DES BRUDERS SEINES VATERS, ODER EINE MENSTRUIERENDE BESCHLAFEN HAT, EIN HOCHPRIESTER, DER EINE WITWE, EIN GEMEINER PRIESTER, DER EINE GESCHIEDENE ODER EINE ḤALUÇA, EIN JISRAÉLIT, DER EIN HURENKIND ODER EINE NETHINA, EINE JISRAÉLITIN, DIE EINEN NATHIN ODER EIN HURENKIND GEHEIRATET HAT. WENN EINE FRAU WITWE UND GESCHIEDENE IST, SO IST MAN IHRETWEGEN WEGEN ZWEIER VERBOTE STRAFBAR; WENN EINE GESCHIEDENE UND ḤALUÇA IST, SO IST MAN IHRETWEGEN NUR WEGEN EINES VERBOTS STRAFBAR.",
+ "FERNER: EIN UNREINER, DER HEILIGES GEGESSEN HAT, WER UNREIN IN DAS HEILIGTUM EINGETRETEN IST, WER TALG, BLUT, ÜBRIGGEBLIEBENES, VERWERFLICHES ODER UNREINES GEGESSEN HAT, WER AUSSERHALB DES HEILIGTUMS OPFER GESCHLACHTET ODER DARGEBRACHT HAT, WER GESÄUERTES AM PESAḤFESTE GEGESSEN HAT, WER AM VERSÖHNUNGSTAGE GEGESSEN ODER EINE ARBEIT VERRICHTET HAT, WER DAS SALBÖL ODER DIE SPEZEREIEN NACHGEMACHT HAT, WER SICH MIT DEM SALBÖL GESCHMIERT HAT, WER AAS, TOTVERLETZTES, EKEL- ODER KRIECHTIERE GEGESSEN HAT, WER UNVERZEHNTETES, ERSTEN ZEHNTEN, VON DEM DIE HEBE NICHT ENTRICHTET WORDEN IST, ODER ZWEITEN ZEHNTEN UND HEILIGES, DIE NICHT AUSGELÖST WORDEN SIND, GEGESSEN HAT. WIEVIEL MUSS MAN VOM UNVERZEHNTETEN GEGESSEN HABEN, UM STRAFBAR ZU SEIN? R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT: ETWAS; DIE WEISEN SAGEN: EIN OLIVENGROSSES QUANTUM, R. ŠIMO͑N SPRACH ZU IHNEN: WOLLT IHR MIR ETWA NICHT BEIPFLICHTEN, DASS, WER EINE NOCH SO KLEINE AMEISE GEGESSEN HAT, STRAFBAR SEI? SIE ERWIDERTEN IHM: WEIL DIESE SO ERSCHAFFEN IST. ER ENTGEGNETE IHNEN: AUCH EIN WEIZENKORN IST SO ERSCHAFFEN.",
+ "WER ERSTLINGE GEGESSEN HAT, BEVOR ER DARÜBER DIE EULOGIE GELESEN HAT, HOCHHEILIGES AUSSERHALB DER VORHÄNGE, MINDERHEILIGES ODER ZWEITEN ZEHNTEN AUSSERHALB DER STADTMAUER, ODER WER EINEN KNOCHEN VOM LEVITISCH REINEN PESAḤLAMME ZERBROCHENHAT, ERHÄLT DIE VIERZIG STREICHE; WER ABER VON EINEM REINEN PESAḤLAMME ETWAS ZURÜCKGELASSENHAT, ODER VON EINEM UNREINEN EINEN KNOCHEN ZERBROCHEN HAT, ERHÄLT NICHTDIE VIERZIG STREICHE.",
+ "WER DIE MUTTERSAMT DEN JUNGEN GENOMMEN HAT, IST, WIE R. JEHUDA SAGT, ZU GEISSELN, UND ER LASSE DIE MUTTER NICHT MEHR FLIEGEN; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, ER LASSE SIE FLIEGEN UND ER IST NICHT ZU GEISSELN. DIE REGEL HIERBEI IST: WEGEN EINES VERBOTES, DEM SICH EIN GEBOT ANSCHLIESST, IST MAN NICHT STRAFBAR.",
+ "WER SICH EINE GLATZE AM KOPFESCHERT, ODER DIE SCHLÄFENWINKEL SEINES HAUPTHAARESRUNDSTUTZT, ODER DIE ECKE SEINES BARTES VERSTÜMMELT, ODER WEGEN EINES TOTEN EINE EINKRATZUNG AM LEIBE MACHT, IST STRAFBAR. WER EINE EINKRATZUNG WEGEN FÜNF TOTEN, ODER FÜNF EINKRATZUNGEN WEGEN EINES TOTEN MACHT, IST WEGEN JEDER BESONDERS STRAFBAR. MAN IST STRAFBAR WEGEN DES HAUPTHAARES ZWEIMAL: EINMAL WEGEN DER EINEN SEITE UND EINMAL WEGEN DER ANDEREN SEITE; WEGEN DES BARTES: ZWEIMAL WEGEN DER EINEN SEITE, ZWEIMAL WEGEN DER ANDEREN SEITE UND EINMAL WEGEN DER UNTEREN ECKE. R. ELIE͑ZER SAGTE: HAT MAN IHN MIT EINEM MAL ABGENOMMEN, SO IST MAN NUR EINMAL STRAFBAR. MAN IST NUR DANN STRAFBAR, WENN MAN IHN MIT EINEM SCHERMESSER ABGENOMMEN HAT ; R. ELIE͑ZER SAGT, MAN SEI STRAFBAR, AUCH WENN MAN IHN MIT EINER ZANGE ODER MIT EINER FEILE ABGENOMMEN HAT.",
+ "WERSCHRIFTZEICHENAN SEINEM KÖRPER EINÄTZT. HAT ER GESCHRIEBEN UND NICHT EINGEÄTZT, EINGEÄTZT ABER NICHT GESCHRIEBEN, SO IST ER NICHT STRAFBAR; WENN ER GESCHRIEBEN UND EINGEÄTZT HAT, MIT TINTE, SCHWÄRZE ODER WAS SONST BLEIBEND ZEICHNET. R. ŠIMO͑N B. JEHUDA SAGTE IM NAMEN R. ŠIMO͑NS: ER IST NUR DANN STRAFBAR, WENN ER DA EINEN GOTTESNAMEN GESCHRIEBEN HAT, DENN ES HEISST:ihr sollt euch nicht Schriftzeichen einätzen, ich bin der Herr.",
+ "WENN ER SICH DEN GANZEN TAG FORTWÄHREND VERUNREINIGT, SO IST ER NUR EINMAL STRAFBAR; WENN MAN ABER WIEDERHOLT ZU IHM GESAGT HAT, DASS ER SICH NICHT VERUNREINIGEN SOLLE, UND ER SICH TROTZDEM VERUNREINIGT HAT, SO IST ER WEGEN JEDES MALES BESONDERS STRAFBAR.",
+ "WENN ER SICH DEN GANZEN TAG FORTWÄHREND RASIERT, SO IST ER NUR EINMAL STRAFBAR; WENN MAN ABER WIEDERHOLT ZU IHM GESAGT HAT, DASS ER SICH NICHT RASIEREN SOLLE, UND ER SICH TROTZDEM RASIERT HAT, SO IST ER WEGEN JEDES MALES BESONDERS STRAFBAR. WENN EINER WÄHREND DES GANZEN TAGES FORTWÄHREND MISCHGEWEBE ANZIEHT, SO IST ER NUR EINMAL STRAFBAR; WENN MAN ZU IHM ABER WIEDERHOLT GESAGT HAT, DASS ER ES NICHT ANZIEHEN SOLLE, UND ER ES TROTZDEM FORTWÄHREND AUSZIEHT UND ANZIEHT, SO IST ER WEGEN JEDES MALES BESONDERS STRAFBAR. MANCHER PFLÜGT EIN BEET UND IST DIESERHALB WEGEN ÜBERTRETUNG VON ACHT VERBOTEN STRAFBAR. WENN EIN PRIESTERLICHER NAZIR AN EINEM FESTE IM SIEBENTJAHRE AUF EINEM UNREINEN PLATZE MISCHSAAT SÄEND (IM WEINBERG) MIT OCHS UND ESEL DES HEILIGTUMSPFLÜGT.",
+ "ḤANANJA B. ḤAKHINAJ SAGTE : ER KANN NOCH MISCHGEWEBE ANGEHABT HABEN. SIE ERWIDERTEN IHM: DIES GEHÖRT NICHT ZU DIESEMRUBRUM. ER ENTGEGNETE IHNEN: AUCH DAS VERBOT HINSICHTLICH DES NAZIRÄERS GEHÖRT NICHT ZU DIESEM RUBRUM.",
+ "WIEVIEL STREICHE VERABREICHT MAN IHM? VIERZIG WENIGER EINEN, DENN ES HEISST:an der Zahl vierzig, EINE ZAHL NAHE VIERZIG; R. JEHUDA SAGT, VIERZIG VOLLSTÄNDIG. WO ERHÄLT ER DEN EINEN ÜBERZÄHLIGEN? ZWISCHEN DEN SCHULTERN.",
+ "MAN SCHÄTZT IHM NUR SO VIEL STREICHE ZU, DASS SIE SICH DREITEILEN LASSEN. WENN MAN IHN VIERZIG AUSZUHALTEN GESCHÄTZT HAT, UND NACHDEM ER EINEN TEIL ERHALTEN HAT MAN IHN ABERMALS SCHÄTZT, KEINE VIERZIG AUSHALTEN ZU KÖNNEN, SO IST ER FREI. WENN MAN IHN NUR ACHTZEHN AUSZUHALTEN GESCHÄTZT HAT, UND NACHDEM ER DIESE ERHALTEN HAT, MAN IHN ABERMALS SCHÄTZT, VIERZIG AUSHALTEN ZU KÖNNEN, SO IST ER FREI. WENN JEMAND EINE SÜNDE BEGANGEN HAT, DIE MIT ZWEI VERBOTEN BELEGT IST, UND MAN IHN WEGEN BEIDER ZUSAMMEN ZUR GEISSELUNG GESCHÄTZT HAT, SO IST ER EINMAL ZU GEISSELN UND IST DANN FREI; WENN ABER NICHT, SO WIRD ER GEGEISSELT, GEHEILT UND WIEDERUM GEGEISSELT.",
+ "AUF WELCHE WEISE ERFOLGT DIE GEISSELUNG? MAN BINDET IHM BEIDE HÄNDE AN EINEN PFAHL NACH DER EINEN UND NACH DER ANDEREN SEITE, UND DER GEMEINDEDIENER ZERRT IHM DIE KLEIDER HERUNTER, MÖGEN SIE AUCH ZERRISSEN ODER AUFGETRENNT WERDEN, BIS ER IHM DAS HERZ ENTBLÖSST; HINTER IHM BEFINDET SICH EIN STEIN, AUF DEM DER GEMEINDEDIENER MIT EINEM RIEMEN AUS KALBLEDER IN DER HAND STEHT. DIESER IST ZUERST DOPPELT UND DANN VIERFACH ZUSAMMENGELEGT, UND ZWEI ANDERE RIEMEN BAUMELN AN DIESEM. DER GRIFF MASS EINE HANDBREITE, DIE BREITE EBENFALLS EINE HANDBREITE; UND DAS ENDE MUSSTEBIS ZUR MITTE DES BAUCHES REICHEN.",
+ "MAN VERABREICHT IHM DIE STREICHE EIN DRITTEL VORN UND ZWEI DRITTEL HINTEN, UND ZWAR SCHLÄGT MAN IHN WEDER STEHEND NOCH SITZEND, SONDERN GEBEUGT, DENN ES HEISST: der Richter soll ihn niederwerfen lassen; DER SCHLAGENDE SCHLÄGT MIT EINER HAND UND MIT DER GANZEN KRAFT.",
+ "DER VORLESER LIEST DEN SCHRIFTVERS:Wenn du nicht beobachten wirst, auszuüben &c. so wird der Herr auszeichnen deine Schläge und die Schläge &c. SODANN BEGINNT ER DEN SCHRIFTVERS VON NEUEM. FERNER :Ihr sollt beobachten die Worte dieses Bundes &c. ER SCHLIESST MIT DEM SCHRIFTVERSE:Er ist barmherzig und vergibt die Sünde &c., UND BEGINNT DEN SCHRIFTVERS VON NEUEM. STIRBT ER UNTER SEINER HAND, SO IST ER STRAFFREI; WENN ER IHM EINEN STREICH ZUVIEL GEGEBEN HAT UND ER GESTORBEN IST, SO MUSS ER DIESERHALB IN DIE VERBANNUNG. BESUDELT ER SICH, ON MIT KOT ODER MIT URIN, SO LÄSST MAN IHN FREI; R. JEHUDA SAGT, EINEN MANN, WENN MIT KOT, EINE FRAU, AUCH WENN MIT URIN.",
+ "ALLE DER AUSROTTUNG SCHULDIGEN, DIE GEGEISSELT WORDEN SIND, SIND DADURCH VON DER AUSROTTUNG BEFREIT WORDEN, DENN ES HEISST : und wenn dein Bruder vor deinen Augen, entehrt wird, SOBALD ER GEGEISSELT WORDEN IST, GILT ER ALS DEIN BRUDER – SO R. ḤANANJA B. GAMLIÉL. R. ḤANANJA B. GAMLIÉL SAGTE FERNER : WENN DEM, DER NUR EINE SÜNDE BEGANGEN HAT, DIESERHALB DAS LEBEN GENOMMEN WIRD, UM WIEVIEL MEHR WIRD DEM, DER EIN GEBOT AUSGEÜBT HAT, DIESERHALB SEIN LEBEN GESCHENKT. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGTE : DIES IST AUS DIESER STELLE SELBER ZU ENTNEHMEN; ES HEISST:es sollen ausgerottet werden die Personen, die tun &c., UND FERNER HEISST ES: daß er nach ihnen tueund durch sie lebe; HIERAUS ALSO, DASS MAN DEN, DER DASITZT UND KEINE SÜNDE BEGEHT, EBENSO BELOHNT WIE DEN, DER EIN GEBOT AUSGEÜBT HAT. R. ŠIMO͑N B. RABBI SAGTE: ES HEISST :nur sei fest, das Blut nicht zu essen, denn das Blut ist das Leben &c.; WENN NUN DERJENIGE, DER SICH DES BLUTES ENTHÄLT, VOR DEM DER MENSCH SICH EKELT, EINE BELOHNUNG ERHÄLT, UM WIEVIEL MEHR ERWIRBT DERJENIGE VERDIENSTE, DER SICH DES RAUBES UND DER UNZUCHT ENTHÄLT, NACH DENEN DIE SEELE DES MENSCHEN VERLANGT UND GELÜSTET, FÜR SICH, FÜR SEINE NACHKOMMEN UND FÜR DIE NACHKOMMEN SEINER NACHKOMMEN, BIS ANS ENDE ALLER GENERATIONEN.",
+ "R. ḤANINA B. A͑QAŠJA SAGTE: DER HEILIGE, GEPRIESEN SEI ER, WOLLTE JISRAÉL. VERDIENSTLICH MACHEN, DAHER VERLIEH ER IHNEN DAS GESETZ UND VIELE GEBOTE, WIE ES HEISST :dem Herrn gefiel es um seiner Gerechtigkeit willen, seine Lehre groß und ausgedehnt zu machen."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14084eab47cae8d10fad88d9a88100d6c77c6706
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Makkot",
+ "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein",
+ "versionTitle": "The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "CC-BY",
+ "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "המשנה עם פירושי רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, רבי שרגא זילברשטיין",
+ "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה מכות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "\tHow are the witnesses made zomemin? [This is the intent: Those witnesses who are found to be zomemin (\"scheming\"), and in whom the law of hazamah is not implemented, i.e., in whom (Deuteronomy 19:19): \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother\" cannot be satisfied, how do they become zomemin?] (If they say:) We testify about this man [a Cohein] that he is the son of a divorcée [i.e., his mother was divorced before us before he was born, and he is a challal (unfit for the priesthood)], or the son of a chalutzah, we do not say [if they were proved zomemin, and they were Cohanim], let this one be considered the son of a divorcée or the son of a chalutzah instead of him, [for it is written: \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed\" — to him, and not to his seed. And if you render him a challal and he is a Cohein, you have rendered his seed unfit (for the priesthood) forever. And if you say let us render him alone unfit and not his seed — we require \"as he schemed to do,\" and this does not obtain, for he schemed to render both the adjudged and his seed unfit], but he receives forty stripes, [it being written (Ibid. 28:1): \"…and they vindicate the righteous one and incriminate the wicked one, if liable to stripes be the wicked one, etc.\": Now, is it because they vindicate the righteous one and incriminate the wicked one that the wicked one is liable to stripes! It is, rather, (intimated) that if witnesses incriminate one who is (really) righteous, and other witnesses come and vindicate the one who was righteous all along, rendering the (first) witnesses wicked (i.e., zomemin), then: \"if liable to stripes be the wicked one\" (in the event that what they intended for the righteous one cannot be done to them)]. (If they say:) We testify about this man that he is liable to exile, we do not say let them be exiled in his stead, but he receives forty stripes, [it being written (Ibid. 19:5): \"…he shall flee\" — he, and not his zomemin.] (If they say:) We testify about this man that he divorced his wife [before us on this and this day] and did not give her her kethubah, [and the other says: I did not divorce her and I do not owe her a kethubah] — now, either today or tomorrow, will he not give her a kethubah? [i.e., What shall they pay him? If you say the entire kethubah, might he not die or divorce her today or tomorrow, in which instance she will receive it anyway, so that they would have caused him no loss whatsoever!] (Rather) We estimate how much one would want to give for the kethubah of this woman [on the possibility that] if she is widowed or divorced, [he will receive the kethubah] and if she dies, her husband will inherit her [and he will lose the money that he gave. And it is this amount that the witnesses give to the husband.] (If they say:) We testify about this man that he owes his neighbor a thousand zuz, which he must pay within thirty days; and he says: within ten years, we estimate how much one would give to have a thousand zuz in his hand for ten years rather than for thirty days.",
+ "\t(If witnesses say:) We testify about that man that he owes his neighbor two hundred zuz, and they were found to be zomemin, they receive stripes and they pay. For it is not the verse that brings one to stripes which brings him to payment. [Stripes, from (Exodus 20:13): \"You shall not testify against your neighbor false testimony\"; payment, from \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do.\"] These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: Whoever pays does not receive stripes, [it being written (Deuteronomy 25:2): \"according to his wickedness\" — For one wickedness you make him liable, and not for two. And since the rabbis say that he pays and does not receive stripes, and not that he receives stripes and does not pay, we infer that wherever there are two, stripes and payment, we do not say that he receives stripes and does not pay, but that he pays and does not receive stripes. And this is the halachah.]",
+ "\t(If witnesses say:) We testify about that man that he is liable to forty stripes, and they were found to be zomemin, they receive eighty stripes, because of (Exodus 20:13): \"You shall not testify against your neighbor false testimony\" and because of (Deuteronomy 19:19) \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother.\" These are the words of R. Meir. [For since when it is not possible to satisfy in the witnesses \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed\" (as when they testify that one is the son of a divorcée) they receive stripes by reason of \"You shall not testify\" — here, where there is an exhortation of \"You shall not testify,\" and also one of \"as he schemed,\" he receives eighty stripes. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.] The sages say: He receives only forty stripes. They \"third\" in money [Scheming witnesses who are liable for payment pay the money according to the number of witnesses. If they were three and they were rendered zomemin, each pays a third of the sum that they desired to impose], and they do not \"third\" in stripes. [Each one of the witnesses does not receive a third of the stripes, but each receives forty in order to satisfy \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed.\" For each of the witnesses desired to impose a complete (forty) stripes on the adjudged. Money \"adds up,\" so that when each gives a third, he receives what they wished to make him liable to among all of them; but stripes does not \"add up.\"] How so? If they testified about him that he owes his neighbor two hundred zuz and they were found to be zomemin, they \"third\" among them. But if they testified against him that he is liable to forty stripes, and they were found to be zomemin, each one of them receives forty stripes.",
+ "\tWitnesses do not become zomemin until they themselves are rendered zomemin, [i.e., in respect to what concerns them, and not what concerns the killer or the killed, as explained below. This is derived from (Deuteronomy 19:18): \"And, behold, a false witness is the witness\" — until the falsehood inheres in the persons of the witnesses themselves.] How so? If they said: We testify about this man that he killed another, and they are refuted — How can you say this when the (alleged) victim or murderer was with us that day in a different place? — they are not rendered zomemin. But if they said: How can you say this when you were with us that day in a different place? they are rendered zomemin, and they are killed by their (the refuters') testimony.",
+ "\tIf others came and they (the refuters) rendered them zomemin; if others came, and they rendered them zomemin — even if they were a hundred [sets of witnesses, giving the same testimony one after the other, and all refuted by the same set], they are all killed. R. Yehudah says: \"This (refuting) set is istasith\" [perverse and devious, having taken counsel between themselves to refute whoever comes to give this testimony. Another interpretation: \"Is this (refuting set a vat of) isatis\" (a dye), (which dyes all who touch it)]! And only the first set of witnesses is killed. [R. Yehudah holds that after the first set is refuted, the succeeding set is not accepted; and if they do testify and are refuted, they are not killed, not satisfying: \"Then you shall do to him, etc.\", for he (the adjudged) is not killed by their testimony. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
+ "\tScheming witnesses are not killed until judgment has been passed [upon the adjudged to be killed by their testimony, after which they are refuted]. For the Sadducees were wont to say: (Scheming witnesses are not killed) until he (the adjudged) is killed, it being written (Leviticus 24:18): \"A life for a life\" — whereupon the sages said to them: But is it not already written: \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother\" — \"his brother\" connoting his living brother! If so, how is \"A life for a life\" to be satisfied? I might think that they could be killed as soon as their testimony was accepted; we are, therefore, apprised: \"A life for a life\" — They are not killed until judgment has been passed (on the life of the adjudged).",
+ "\t(Deuteronomy 17:6): \"By the word of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the dead one be put to death.\" If the testimony stands with two, why does Scripture indicate three? To liken three to two, viz. Just as three can render two, zomemin, so two can render three, zomemin. And whence do we derive [that two can render zomemin] even a hundred? From (Ibid.): \"witnesses\" (i.e., any number). R. Shimon says: Just as two are not killed until both are rendered zomemin, [it being written (Ibid. 19:18): \"And, behold, a false witness is the witness,\" concerning which the master said: Wherever \"witness\" is written, two (witnesses) are understood, unless it is explicitly stated \"one\"], so, three are not killed until the three are rendered zomemin. [This, if each testifies immediately upon the conclusion of the other's testimony. But if two testify and after some time, the others do, they are two distinct sets of witnesses in all respects.] And whence do we derive (that this is so) even (with) a hundred? From: \"witnesses.\" R. Akiva says: The third (i.e., \"three witnesses\") comes only to (tell us to) be stringent with him and to equate his judgment with that of the others, [that one not say: Since even without the third, the testimony (of the others) would stand, the judgment of hazamah should not apply to him. The verse apprises us (that this is not so) that he, too, is judged.]. If Scripture thus punished the accessory to transgressors as the transgressors themselves, how much more so will the accessories to the doers of a mitzvah be rewarded as the doers of the mitzvah themselves! [For \"His measure for good is greater than that for punishment.\"]",
+ "\tJust as with two (witnesses), if one of them were found to be kin or pasul (unfit to testify), their testimony is void, so with three; if one of them were found to be kin or pasul, their testimony is void. Whence is it derived (that this is so) even with a hundred? From \"witnesses.\" R. Yossi said: When is this so? With capital cases, [it being written in that regard (Numbers 35:25): \"And the congregation shall rescue, etc.\" They should seek to find something in his favor.], but in monetary cases, the testimony stands through the others (who are not kin or pasul). Rebbi says: Both in monetary cases and in capital cases [the testimony is void]. When [do we say in capital cases that the testimony is void?] When they warned them [i.e., when the kin or pasul joined (the others) originally to be one of the warners of the transgressors]; but if they did not warn them, [and they had no intent to be witnesses to the deed, the testimony of the others is not voided because of what they saw, for] what should two brothers do who saw one man kill another?",
+ "\tIf two saw him from one window and two saw him from another, and one warned him in the middle — When some see each other, they become one set of witnesses [The warner combines with the set of witnesses that he sees and who see him at the time of the warning. Therefore, if the two sets in the two windows see him, they combine with each other and all become one set.]; and if not, they are two sets. Therefore, if one of the sets were rendered zomemin, he (the adjudged) and they are killed. [He is killed, for there is still another set who were not rendered zomemin; and they, the refuted ones, are killed, having been rendered zomemin], and the second set are not liable. R. Yossi says: He (the accused one) is not killed unless his two witnesses had warned him, it being written (Deuteronomy 17:6): \"By word of two witnesses, etc.\" Another interpretation: \"By word of two witnesses\" — that Sanhedrin not hear it from an interpreter [i.e., The judges must understand the language of the witnesses and not find it necessary to place an interpreter between them. And this is the halachah.]",
+ "\tIf one's judgment (for execution) were completed, and he fled, and he came before that beth-din (that had sentenced him), his judgment is not overturned. Wherever two arise and say: We testify about that man that his judgment was completed in that beth-din, and so and so were his witnesses, he is killed. Sanhedrin officiates both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it. [The Sanhedrin ordained in Eretz Yisrael is authorized to adjudicate penalty (knass) cases and capital cases both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it, so long as the great beth-din presides in the chamber of hewn stone, viz. (Deuteronomy 17:12): \"not to listen to the Cohein … or to the judge\": When there is a Cohein sacrificing upon the altar, there is a judge adjudicating capital cases. When there is no Cohein, there is no judge.] A sanhedrin that performs one execution in seven years is called \"destructive.\" [For they must be patient in judgment and probe all possibilities of acquittal in capital cases.] R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: [Even] one in seventy years. R. Tarfon and R. Akiva say: If we were on the sanhedrin, no man would ever be killed. [For they would cross-examine the witnesses with questions that they could not answer. In murder cases: \"What did you see? Did he kill a treifah (one with a fatal organic condition) or a 'whole' man? And if you say a whole man, perhaps there was a hole (making him treifah) in the place of the sword!\" In cases of arayoth (illicit relations): \"Did you see it 'as a dauber in the tube'?\" R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: They themselves multiply spillers of blood in Israel! [For, as a result, the wicked are not eradicated, and they spill more blood.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tThese are the ones who are exiled: one who kills another unwittingly (e.g.,): If one were rolling with a ma'agilah [a smooth round stone rolled over lime or plaster on the roof to even cracks], and it fell upon someone and killed him; or if he were letting down a jug, and it fell on someone and killed him; or if he were climbing down a ladder and fell on someone and killed him — he is exiled. But if he were pulling up a ma'agilah, and it fell on someone and killed him; or if he were pulling up a jug, and the rope snapped, and it (the jug) fell upon someone and killed him; or if he were climbing up a ladder and fell on someone and killed him — he is not exiled. This is the rule: Whenever (someone is killed) through one's downward action, he is exiled; not through his downward action, he is not exiled, [it being written (Numbers 35:23): \"…and he cause it to fall upon him\" — it must be by way of \"falling.\" \"Whenever\" (\"kol\") comes to include even a downward motion for the sake of an upward one.] If the blade slips from its haft and kills — Rebbi says: He is not exiled; the sages say: He is exiled. If it slips from the wood he is chopping, Rebbi says: He is exiled; the sages say: He is not exiled. [Rebbi holds that \"wood\" in (Deuteronomy 19:5): \"…and the blade slips from the wood\" refers to the wood that is being chopped, and not the haft. And the rabbis hold that \"the wood\" is the haft. The halachah is in accordance with the sages. For (the blade slipping from) the wood that is being chopped is \"the power of his power,\" for which one is not exiled.]",
+ "\tIf one threw a stone into the public domain and killed someone, he is exiled. [Even though this sounds close to \"witting,\" for one should take into account that there are always people in the public domain, we are speaking here of a refuse heap in the public domain where people are wont to relieve themselves at night, but rarely in the daytime (when he threw the stone). For this reason, he is exiled; for he is neither a willful offender nor completely blameless.] If, after the stone left his hand, the other stuck out his head and was struck by it (and killed), he is not liable, [it being written (Deuteronomy 19:5): \"…and it find his neighbor\" — to exclude his presenting himself.] If he threw the stone into his own domain and killed someone, if the latter had permission [from the owner] to enter there, he is exiled; if not, he is not exiled, it being written (Deuteronomy 19:5): \"And one who comes upon his neighbor in the forest to chop wood, etc.\": Just as a forest is a place that the slayer and the slain were permitted to enter, (so all such places are subsumed in this halachah) — to exclude the slayer's courtyard where both did not have the right to enter (but only the owner). Abba Shaul says: Just as the chopping of wood is a (merely) permitted activity, [i.e., if he wishes, he goes to chop; if not, not], so all (merely permitted activities are subsumed in the halachah) — to exclude a father beating his son, [the father doing a mitzvah], a teacher chastising his student, and a bailiff of beth-din (beating someone at beth-din's behest.)",
+ "\tA father is exiled through his son [if he were not beating him to teach him Torah, or to chastise him, or to teach him a trade (and he died).], and a son is exiled through his father. All [even a bondsman or a Cuthite] are exiled through an Israelite, and an Israelite is exiled through them, except a ger toshav (a \"resident-stranger\"). [If he kills an Israelite unwittingly, he is not exiled, but killed.] And a ger toshav is not exiled except through (another) ger toshav. A blind man is not exiled, [it being written (Numbers 35:23): \"without seeing\" — to exclude one who is blind.] These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Meir says: He is exiled: [\"without seeing\" — to include one who is blind. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.] R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: A \"hater\" [one who did not speak with him for three days out of hatred] is killed, for he is like a mued (one who has been forewarned). R. Shimon says: There is a hater who is exiled and a hater who is not exiled. This is the rule: Wherever it may be presumed that he killed wittingly, he is not exiled; (and wherever it may be presumed) that he did not kill wittingly, he is exiled. [The halachah is neither in accordance with R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah nor with R. Shimon; but a hater is neither killed nor \"absorbed\" (in the cities of refuge), for he is close to \"witting.\"]",
+ "\tWhither is one exiled to the cities of refuge? To the three across the Jordan and the three in the land of Canaan, as it is written (Numbers 35:14): \"The three cities shall you provide across the Jordan; and the three cities shall you provide in the land of Canaan.\" And as long as the three in Eretz Yisrael had not been designated, the three across the Jordan did not grant refuge, it being written (Ibid. 13): \"Six cities of refuge shall there be\" — they must all be capable of granting refuge as one. [And forty-two cities of the Levites also all granted refuge. It is just that these six cities granted refuge whether or not the slayer entered there with the intent that they do so, whereas the forty-two cities granted refuge only where there was intent, but not otherwise; and if the blood-redeemer killed him there (in the absence of such intent), he is not liable.]",
+ "\tAnd roads led from one to the other, [i.e., they made roads leading to the cities of refuge, so that the slayer not stray on the road. And \"Refuge\" signs were posted on the crossroads for the slayer to see and to follow], viz. (Deuteronomy 19:3): \"Prepare for yourself the way, and divide in thirds, etc.\" And two Torah scholars were provided them, lest they be slain on the way; and they would speak to him. [They would speak to the blood-redeemer, viz.: \"Do not be a spiller of blood; he did this unwittingly.\" R. Meir says: He could also speak for himself, viz. (Ibid. 4): \"And this is the 'word' of the slayer [i.e., It was not necessary to provide him with Torah scholars to speak to the blood-redeemer on his behalf, but he could do so himself. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.]",
+ "\tR. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: Initially, both one who kills unwittingly and one who kills willfully proceed to the cities of refuge and beth-din send and bring them from there. One who is liable to execution by beth-din is put to death, and one who is not, is acquitted. One who is liable to exile is returned to his place, as it is written (Numbers 35:25): \"And the congregation shall return him to the city of his refuge, etc.\" Both the priest anointed with the anointing oil, and the priest of the \"manifold vestments\" [(For after the cruse of anointing oil was secreted, one was inaugurated into the high-priesthood only through the donning of the eight vestments)], and the priest whose anointment was rescinded [(if the high-priest had an emission on Yom Kippur and another was appointed in his stead)], \"return\" the slayer (from the city of refuge). [With the death of either of these he returns, even if the other is alive, \"high-priest\" being written three times in this section.] R. Yehudah says: The priest anointed for war (mashuach milchamah), too, returns the slayer, [it being written (Numbers 35:32): \"…to return to dwell in the land until the death of the priest.\" And the rabbis do not expound it, it not being written \"the high-priest.\" The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] Therefore, the mothers of the priests would supply them (the slayers in the city of refuge) with food and clothing, so that they not pray that their sons die (so that they can leave the city.) [And they (the priests) were at fault, for they should have implored mercy for their generation that misfortunes not occur, and they failed to do so.] If after he were sentenced [to exile] the high-priest died, he is not exiled. [For once he has been sentenced and is awaiting exile, it is as if he has already been exiled.] If before he were sentenced, the high-priest died, and another were appointed in his stead, after which he was sentenced, he returns with the death of the second.",
+ "\tOne whose judgment was concluded without a high-priest, [i.e., if there were no high-priest], one who kills a high-priest, and a high-priest who kills, never leaves (his city of refuge), and (one who is exiled) goes out neither for testimony of mitzvah, nor for testimony in monetary litigation, nor for testimony in a capital case. Even if Israel needed him; even if he were a commander in Israel, like Yoav ben Tzeruyah, he never leaves, it being written (Numbers 35:25): \"…that he had fled there\" — there shall be his dwelling; there shall he die; there shall he be buried. Just as the city grants refuge, so does its tchum (its bound, two thousand cubits around the city) grant refuge. A slayer who went outside the tchum and was found by the blood-redeemer — R. Yossi says: It is a mitzvah for the blood-redeemer (to kill him), and everyone else is permitted to do so. R. Akiva says: The blood-redeemer is permitted to do so, and all others are not liable if they do so. [All others, aside from the blood-redeemer, who killed him outside his city of refuge, are not liable, it being written (Numbers 35:27): \"He has no blood\"; and the blood-redeemer is permitted to kill him (ab initio)]. If a tree stands in the midst of the bounds (of the city of refuge), and its boughs extend outside the bounds; or if it stands outside the bounds and its boughs extend within the bounds, all goes according to the boughs. [The Gemara explains that \"also according to the boughs\" is what is meant, i.e., If its trunk were within the bounds of the city of refuge, and its boughs extend outside the bounds, if he stands under the boughs, he is \"absorbed,\" since its main part is within, and its boughs are regarded as an extension of the main part. And if the main part is outside, and the boughs, within, so that he may not kill him under the boughs, he may also not kill him near the main part, the main part being regarded as an extension of its bows for stringency (in this regard). If he killed within that city, he is exiled from one neighborhood to another (within that city). A Levite is exiled from one city to another.",
+ "\tSimilarly, if a slayer fled to his city of refuge, and the people of that city wished to honor him, he must tell them: \"I am a slayer\"; and, if they persist, he may accept their homage, viz. (Deuteronomy 19:4): \"And this is the word of the slayer\" (i.e., He must say, in the above instance: \"I am a slayer.\") They would pay rent to the Levites. [In the forty-two (Levite) cities, which also grant refuge, the slayer pays rent to the man with whom he lodges.] These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Meir says: They would not pay rent to them. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir. (The disagreement obtains) only with the forty-two (Levite) cities, but with the six cities of refuge, all agree that no rent was paid.] And (upon leaving the city of refuge) he returns to his former eminence. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: He would not return to his former eminence, [it being written (Leviticus 25:41): \"And he shall return to his family, and to the holding of his fathers shall he return\" — He returns to his family, but not to the station held by his fathers. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tAnd these are the ones who receive stripes [Not only \"these.\" For the tanna teaches (these) and omits many who receive stripes. But he teaches us those liable to kareth to apprise us that stripes obtain with those liable to kareth. And he teaches us a widow-divorcée to apprise us that there is stripes liability in that instance by reason of two exhortations. And he teaches us tevel and first-tithe whose terumah was not separated, because their exhortation is not explicitly stated. Likewise, hekdesh (dedicated food) which was not redeemed. And since he teaches hekdesh, he teaches second-tithe, stripes obtaining with both because of non-redemption. Similarly, with all, there is some novelty (of which we are being apprised)]: one who lives with his sister, with his father's sister, with his mother's sister, with his wife's sister, with his brother's wife, with the wife of his father's brother, with a niddah ( a woman in her menstrual state), a high-priest who lives with a widow, a regular priest who lives with a divorcée or with a chalutzah, an Israelite who lives with a mamzereth (the issue of illicit relations) or with a Nethinah [a descendant of the Giveonites, (a relationship) subject to stripes by reason of (Deuteronomy 7:3): \"Do not intermarry with them.\"], and an Israelite woman who lives with a Nathin or a mamzer. (A high-priest who lives with) a widow-divorcée who had been widowed from another man] is liable to stripes by reason of two exhortations, both (divorcée and widow) being indicated in Scripture, and both being exhorted against.] (A Cohein who lives with) a divorcée-chalutzah [i.e., a chalutzah who had been divorced] is liable to stripes by reason of one exhortation alone. [He is not liable by reason of two exhortations, for chalutzah is not explicitly stated, but derived from the addition (\"and\"), viz. (Leviticus 21:7): \"A woman divorced\" — This tells me only of a divorcée. When do I derive a chalutzah (as likewise interdicted)? From: \"and a woman divorced.\"]",
+ "\t(And these are the ones who receive stripes, etc.\":) one who eats hekdesh in a state of uncleanliness, one who enters the sanctuary in a state of uncleanliness, one who eats forbidden fats, blood, nothar (portions of sacrifices left over beyond the prescribed time of eating), pigul (sacrifices invalidated through improper intent), and unclean food, one who slaughters or sacrifices (an offering) outside (the Temple), one who eats chametz on Pesach, one who eats or performs labor on Yom Kippur, one who compounds oil [as the oil of anointment was compounded], one who compounds the incense (as the Temple incense was compounded), one who anoints himself with the oil of anointment [compounded by Moses], one who eats carrion, treifah, forbidden animals and reptiles, one who eats tevel (untithed food) [The exhortation is from (Leviticus 22:15): \"And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they will lift to the L rd.\" Scripture speaks of what will be lifted (i.e., tevel, from which terumah will be lifted)], and first-tithe whose terumah has not been taken, [this, too, involving death liability, viz. (Numbers 18:27): \"And your terumah will be accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor, etc.\"] and second tithe and hekdesh which were not redeemed. [One may not eat second-tithe that became unclean, even if he is in Jerusalem, unless it is redeemed. And if one eats it in Jerusalem before it is redeemed he receives stripes. His exhortation is from (Deuteronomy 26:14): \"I did not consume of it in uncleanliness\" — whether I were unclean and it clean, or I were clean and it unclean. And whence is it derived that second-tithe that became unclean is redeemed in Jerusalem? From (Deuteronomy 14:24): \"that you not be able se'etho,\" \"se'eth\" referring to eating, as in (Genesis 43:34): \"And he took (food) portions (ma'asoth) from before him.\" (\"and hekdesh which was not redeemed\":) This is not explicitly stated, but its exhortation is derived by identity: \"sin\" (Leviticus 5:15) - sin (Ibid. 22:9), from terumah. And even though Scripture indicates (Ibid.): \"and they will die for it (terumah),\" and not for me'ilah (abuse of hekdesh), it (me'ilah) is excluded from death, but not from the exhortation.] How much must he eat of tevel in order to be liable? R. Shimon says: Any amount. The sages say: The size of an olive. R. Shimon said to them: Will you not concede to me that if one eats any amount of an ant he is liable? [by reason of (Leviticus 11:423): \"…creeping things that creep upon the earth,\" regardless of the amount] They said to him: Because it is as created. He said to them: One grain is also as created! [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon, only something which has an (animating) soul being called a \"creature.\"]",
+ "\t(\"And these are the ones who receive stripes:\") one (a Cohein) who eats bikkurim (first-fruits) before the invocation has been recited over them [viz. (Deuteronomy 26:5): \"An Aramean would destroy my father, etc.\" But after the invocation, he does not receive stripes if he eats of them because they are (then) the property of the Cohein. These are the words of R. Akiva. But the sages hold that \"placing\" (in the azarah) is a prerequisite for the eating of bikkurim, but not the invocation; so that if he eats them after they have been placed in the azarah, even if the invocation has not yet been recited, he does not receive stripes. And the halachah is in accordance with the sages. The exhortation is from (Deuteronomy 12:17): \"You shall not be able to eat in your gates the tithes of your corn … and the offering of your hands,\" concerning which the master said: \"and the offering (terumah) of your hands\" — this is bikkurim. For, if terumah per se, that does not require \"bringing to the place (Jerusalem).\" And for eating bikkurim, too, he does not receive stripes unless he ate them after they \"saw the face of Jerusalem,\" before being placed in the azarah. But if he ate them outside Jerusalem, he does not receive stripes.], (and one who eats) holy of holies outside the (Temple) partitions, or lower-order offerings and second-tithe outside the wall. [The exhortation for all of these is from: \"You shall not be able to eat in your gates … and all of your vows that you vow.\" For every eating outside its assigned place is called \"eating in the gates.\" (\"second-tithe\":) Above, we learned of unclean, unredeemed second-tithe, as we explained, and here we learn of clean second-tithe which was eaten outside the wall. And it is only if he ate it outside the wall after \"it saw the face of Jerusalem\" that he receives stripes; but if one eats second-tithe outside Jerusalem, he does not receive stripes, it being written (Ibid. 18): \"Before the L rd your G d shall you eat it,\" and afterwards (i.e., only after this applies, is there stripes violation of) \"You shall not be able to eat it in your gates.\"] If one breaks a bone of a clean Pesach offering, he receives forty stripes, but if he leaves over of a clean one or breaks a bone of an unclean one, he does not receive stripes. [(\"if he leaves over\":) it being written (Exodus 12:10): \"And do not leave over anything of it until morning; and what is left over of it until morning, in fire shall you burn it.\" Scripture states a positive commandment after a negative one by way of saying: If you have transgressed the negative commandment, fulfill the positive one and you will not receive stripes. Also, \"And do not leave over\" is a negative commandment not involving an act, for which there is no stripes liability. (\"or breaks a bone of an unclean one, etc.\":) it being written: (Ibid. 46): \"And a bone shall you not break in it\" — in one that is kasher, and not in one that is pasul (unfit)].",
+ "\tIf one takes the mother bird together with the fledglings — R. Yehudah says: He receives stripes and does not send (the mother) away. [R. Yehudah holds that (Deuteronomy 22:7): \"Send shall you send\" connotes ab initio (i.e., if you have not taken it). And even though \"Send shall you send\" is written after (Ibid. 6): \"You shall not take,\" the connotation is not: If you have taken it, send it away, but: Do not take it; rather, send it away. So that this is not a negative commandment linked to a positive one (for which there is no stripes liability)]. And the sages say: He sends it away and does not receive stripes. [They hold that \"Send it away after you have taken it\" is connoted, so that it is a negative commandment linked to a positive one. The halachah is in accordance with the rabbis.] This is the rule: There is no stripes liability for any negative commandment accompanied by a positive one, [where the Torah states, as it were: If you have transgressed the negative commandment, fulfill the positive one, e.g.: \"You shall not take the mother bird together with the fledglings\" — and if you did, \"Send shall you send, etc.\"; (Deuteronomy 24:10): \"Do not enter his house to claim his pledge\" — and if you did, (Ibid. 13): \"Return shall you return to him the pledge.\" In all such instances, if he fulfills the positive commandment, he does not receive stripes. But if he does not fulfill the positive commandment, as when he takes the mother together with the fledglings, and he slaughters it or it dies; or if he takes the pledge from his house and it is burned, in which case he cannot fulfill the positive commandment, he receives stripes.]",
+ "\tOne who makes a bald spot on his head, one who rounds off the corners of his head, one who destroys the corners of his beard, and one who makes one laceration (in his flesh) for a dead person are liable to stripes. [These are adduced in our Mishnah, for there is liability for each bald spot, each cutting, and each corner, as opposed to eating forbidden fats one piece after the other. But other (transgressions of) negative commandments alone, where there is no novelty, are not adduced. (\"a bald spot\":) for a dead person, viz. (Deuteronomy 14:1): \"And do not make baldness between your eyes for the dead.\" And even though in respect to Cohanim (Leviticus 21:5), it is not written \"for the dead,\" this is derived by identity: \"baldness\" - \"baldness\" — Just as with an Israelite, for the dead, so with Cohanim, for the dead. And the size of \"baldness\" is as a garis ( a bean). (\"one who rounds off the corners of his head\":) aligning the hair of one's temples with that behind his ears and that of his forehead. Even for cutting with scissors, where there is no \"destruction,\" one is liable for the corners of the head. For \"destruction\" (hashchathah) is written only re the beard, and obtains only with a razor. But re the corners of the head, \"rounding off\" (hakafah) is written; he is liable for any manner of rounding off.] If one makes one laceration for five dead persons or five lacerations for one dead person, he is liable for each one individually, [it being written (Leviticus 19:28): \"And a laceration for a (dead) person you shall not make,\" implying liability for each laceration and for each person, even if there were only one warning and all five lacerations were made at the same time.] For (rounding off the corners of) the head, he is liable (to stripes) twice, once for one side [the right], once for the other [the left]. For (destroying the corners of) the beard, (he is liable to stripes) twice for one side, twice for the other, and once for the bottom. [the juncture of the chin and the bone: one to the right of the chin, one to the left, and the beard-point in the middle —- three; and the temple junctures on either side — five. The upper cheekbone attached to the temples, and the lower cheekbone on the right; and the upper and lower cheekbone on the left — two on one side, two on the other, and the point of the beard, from which the hair issues like an ear (of corn, shibboleth, for which reason it is called \"the shibboleth of the beard\") — five.] R. Eliezer says: If he takes it off all at once, he is liable (to stripes) only once. [For since it is only one negative commandment, it is as if he eats two olive-sizes of forbidden fats at one warning.] And he is not liable unless he shaves it with a razor. [This refers to the corners of the beard, in respect to which \"shaving\" and \"destruction\" are written.] R. Eliezer says: Even if he took it off with pinchers or with a plane he is liable.",
+ "\tIf one writes with engraving (in the skin, i.e., tattooing), if he writes [on his skin with ink or bluing], but does not engrave [with a knife]; or if he engraves [with a knife], but does not write, [i.e., he does not fill it in with ink or bluing], he is not liable. (He is liable) only when he writes and engraves: with ink, bluing, or anything else that leaves an impression. [The language of Scripture is being followed, viz. (Leviticus 19:28): \"writing that is engraved\"; first writing, then engraving. But, in practice, the engraving is first, and then the writing. And the verse implies this: \"Writing (in the midst of) engraving you shall not make upon yourselves.\"] R. Shimon b. Yehudah says in the name of R. Shimon: He is not liable until he writes the name there, it being written: \"And writing that is engraved you shall not make upon yourselves; I am the L rd.\" [(\"until he writes the name there\":) The Gemara explains that the name of idolatry is meant, the verse being understood thus: \"Do not make upon yourselves the name of idolatry, for I am the L rd\" — Do not join others unto Me. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
+ "\tIf a Nazirite drank wine the entire day, he is liable (to stripes) only once, [for what he drank immediately after the warning. And if there were before him a vessel containing several revi'ioth of wine, and he were told: \"Do not drink from this vessel, which contains so many and so many (forbidden) quantities (i.e., revi'ioth), for you will receive so many and so many stripes,\" he is liable for each quantity, even if he received only one warning.] If he were told: \"Do not drink; do not drink,\" and he drank, he is liable for each one.",
+ "\tIf one made himself unclean to the dead the entire day, he is liable only once. If he were told: \"Do not become unclean; do not become unclean,\" and he became unclean, he is liable for each act. If he shaved the entire day, he is liable only once. If he were told: \"Do not shave; do not shave,\" and he shaved, he is liable for each act. If he clothed himself in kilayim the entire day, he is liable only once. If he were told: \"Do not put it on; do not put it on,\" and he took it off and put it on, he is liable for each act. [(\"if he took it off and put it on\":) He need not take it off entirely, but once he sticks his head out and puts it back in, he is liable. The Gemara explains that he does not actually take it off, but that there is enough time from warning to warning for him to take it off and put it on, in which instance he is liable for each warning.]",
+ "\tIt is possible for one to plow a single furrow and to be liable for (transgression of) eight negative commandments. [This, if he were warned against (transgression of) all of them]: plowing with an ox and an ass (together), when they are sanctified, [the ox, for (sacrifice upon) the altar; the ass, for Temple maintenance. With the ox, there is transgression of (Deuteronomy 15:19): \"You shall not work with the firstling of your bullock.\" With the ass, an exhortation against me'ilah (abuse of Temple property), derived by identity \"sin\" (Leviticus 5:15) - sin (Ibid. 22:9), from terumah. And the negative commandment (Deuteronomy 22:10): \"You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together\" — (transgression of) three negative commandments], with kilayim ( a forbidden admixture) of the vineyard [In plowing, he covers over wheat and barley and (grape) kernels with soil, thereby transgressing (Deuteronomy 22:9): \"You shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim,\" it being ruled that one who \"covers over\" kilayim receives stripes — even though he does not sow them, but only covers them over with soil. This gives us four negative commandments. Rambam reckons kilayim of the vineyard as two negative commandments, one (transgression) by reason of seed kilayim, there being two varieties of seed — wheat and barley — and another by reason of vineyard kilayim, because of the kernels. He reckons \"sanctified ox and ass\" as (transgression of) only one negative commandment.], on shevi'ith (the sabbatical year), [viz. (Leviticus 25:4): \"…a Sabbath to the L rd; your field you shall not sow.\"], on a festival, [viz. (Ibid. 23:7): \"All manner of work you shall not do.\"], and a Cohein and a Nazirite in the place of uncleanliness, [i.e., the cemetery, where he transgresses (Leviticus 21:1): \"To a dead person he shall not become unclean among his people,\" stated in respect to Cohanim, and (Numbers 6:6): \"Upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come,\" stated in respect to Nazirites.] Chanania b. Chachinai says: Also, (there can be included) one clothed in kilayim [as he is plowing.] They countered: This is not by reason of the name [i.e., The negative commandment against wearing kilayim does not obtain by reason of the furrow.] He countered: \"Cohein and Nazirite,\" too, [which you included as (transgressions of) negative commandments] are not by reason of the name! [i.e., They do not obtain by reason of plowing, but by reason of going to a place of uncleanliness. Still, the first tanna includes them because he cannot plow with oxen unless he goes with them and leads them.]",
+ "\tHow many stripes does he receive? Forty less one, it being written (Deuteronomy 25:2-3): \"in number. Forty\" — a number which is next to forty, [i.e., which causes \"forty\" to be said after it; that is, thirty-nine. If \"forty in number\" were written,\" I would understand it as \"a count of forty.\" Now that it is written \"in number forty,\" (I understand it as) a number which causes \"forty\" to be said after it, viz.: thirty-nine.] R. Yehudah says: He receives forty complete lashes. And where does he receive the additional one [(the fortieth) which cannot be \"thirded\"? For thirty-nine can be thirded: one-third in front, and two-thirds, one-third each on each shoulder. But where is the fortieth administered?] Between his shoulders. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
+ "\tHe is assessed to receive only (a number of) stripes that lend themselves to \"thirding.\" [For with all who received stripes in beth-din, it was first necessary to assess (how many lashes they could bear) so that they not die because of them — it being written (Deuteronomy 25:3): \"He shall not add,\" implying that if he must diminish, he does so. (\"that lend themselves to thirding\":) and the assessment is never exceeded.] If he were assessed at forty, [i.e., at thirty-nine; the language of the verse is used] — If after he received part, they said that he could not bear forty, he is exempt (from the rest). If he were assessed at eighteen — If after he were smitten, they said that he could bear forty, he is exempt. If he committed a transgression involving two negative commandments — If they made one assessment [for the two lashings, e.g., forty-two lashes], he is smitten (that number) and he is exempt (from more). And if not, [i.e., If they assessed him for only one lashing], he is smitten, and recovers, and is smitten again.",
+ "\tHow is he smitten? His two hands are tied on either side to a post [stuck standing in the ground and high enough to lean upon], and the beadle of the congregation [the deputy of beth-din] takes hold of his garments. If they are torn, they are torn; and if they are rent [at the seam], they are rent — until he exposes his heart. And the stone is placed behind him [the one to be smitten.] The beadle of the congregation stands upon it with the thong of a calf in his hand, [it being written (Deuteronomy 25:3): \"Forty shall he smite him,\" followed by (4): \"You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing.\"], doubled, one to two and two to four, [i.e., four thongs sewn one atop the other], and two [thin] thongs of an ass, running up and down through it [as a saddle band. The rationale: It is written (Isaiah 1:3): \"The ox knows its owner, and the ass, its master's crib.\" The Holy One Blessed be He said: \"Let that (the ass) which recognizes its master's crib come and exact punishment of him who did not recognize his Master's crib.\"]",
+ "\tIts handle [i.e., the handle to which the thong is attached] is a handbreadth [long], and its breadth (that of the calf thong) is a handbreadth and its tip (that of the thong) reaches his navel. [For this reason there must be a hole in the handle whereby the beadle can lengthen or shorten the thong as required; for one is smitten only with a thong whose tip reaches his navel.] And he is smitten, one-third in front and two-thirds behind, [it being written (Deuteronomy 25:2): \"And he shall smite him before him according to his wickedness.\" \"Before him\" according to one wickedness (i.e., one-third) and behind him, one-third on one shoulder and one-third on the other.] And he smites him neither standing nor sitting, but bent over, it being written (Ibid.): \"Then the judge shall bend him over.\" And the one who smites does so with one hand [(but when he raises the thong, he does so with both hands)], with all his strength, [it being written (Ibid. 3): \"a great blow.\"]",
+ "\tAnd the reader reads, [it being written (Leviticus 19:20): \"bikkoreth tihyeh\" — \"She shall be subject to the reading (kriah),\" it being read over the smitten one: \"If you shall not heed to do, etc.\" The senior judge reads, the second counts, and the third \"calls\" each stroke. And it is a mitzvah for the reader to complete the reading with the completion of the stripes. Failing to do that, he repeats the reading quickly, to make its ending coincide with the completion of the stripes.] (\"The reader reads\":) (Deuteronomy 28:58): \"If you shall not heed to do … then the L rd will make wondrous your smitings and the smitings, etc.\", and he returns to the beginning of the verse. (Ibid. 29:8): \"And you shall keep the words of this covenant, etc.\" And he concludes (Psalms 78:38): \"and He, being merciful, will atone for the sin, etc.\", and he returns to the beginning of the verse. And if he dies under his hand, he is not liable, [having smitten him by authority]. If he added a lash, [erring in the number], and he died, he is exiled. If he soils himself, whether with excrement or with urine [while being smitten], he is except (from the remaining stripes), [it being written (Deuteronomy 25:3): \"and your brother be demeaned before your eyes\" — and he is thus demeaned.] R. Yehudah says: A man, with excrement; a woman, [even] with urine, [her shame being greater. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
+ "\tAll those liable to kareth (cutting-off), who have received stripes, are absolved of their kareth [if they have repented], it being written (Deuteronomy 25:3): \"…and your brother be demeaned before your eyes\" — Once he has been demeaned, he is as your brother. These are the words of R. Chanania b. Gamliel. R. Chanina b. Gamliel said: Now if one who commits one (kareth) transgression has his soul taken from him, then one who performs one mitzvah, how much more so (does it follow) that his soul will be \"granted\" unto him! [Some understand this as referring to those liable to kareth, who were smitten, viz.: \"…then one who accepts his judgment and does a mitzvah in being smitten, how much more so (does it follow) that his soul will be \"granted\" unto him and he will be absolved of kareth!\" For \"His measure for reward is greater than His measure for punishment.\" And others understand it as an independent statement to apprise us of the reward for mitvoth, a fortiori, from the punishment for transgressions.] R. Shimon says: It is derived from its place [i.e., from kareth liability, that we are dealing with, that if one sits and does not transgress, he receives reward as if he had done a mitzvah], it being written [in respect to illicit relations], (Leviticus 18:29): \"And the souls who do it shall be cut off,\" and (Ibid. 5): \"…and he (who observes the statutes against illicit relations) shall live in them\" [followed by (6): \"A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to uncover nakedness\"], whereby it is derived that if one sits and does not transgress [by \"uncovering nakedness\"], he receives reward as if he had done a mitzvah. [Scripture states: \"and he shall live in them\" — just as kareth is indicated for one who transgressed. This, only where the transgression \"presented itself\" and he conquered his evil inclination and resisted it, as Yosef Hatzaddik (with the wife of Potiphar) and the like.] R. Shimon b. Rebbi says (Deuteronomy 12:23): \"Only strengthen yourself not to eat the blood, for the blood is the soul … so that it shall be good for you and for your children after you, etc.\": Now if blood, from which a man's soul recoils, still, if he abstains from it, he receives reward — then theft and illicit relations, for which a man's soul lusts, how much more so does one who abstains from them merit reward for himself, his generations, and his generations' generations to the end of all generations!",
+ "\tR. Chananya ben Akashya says: The Holy One Blessed be He desired to accord merit to Israel, wherefore He multiplied for them Torah and mitzvoth, as it is written (Isaiah 42:21): \"The L rd desired for his [Israel's] righteousness sake, [to vindicate them and to confer merit upon them], that Torah be aggrandized and glorified.\" [(\"He multiplied for them, etc.\":) such as the section on forbidden (\"detestable\") animals and reptiles, to \"multiply reward\" for their abstaining from them. For even if they had not been forbidden, they would not eat them, a man naturally recoiling from them.]"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..777f37d44a491902746eb77beb61a274bc0fe1a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Makkot",
+ "versionSource": "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1",
+ "versionTitle": "William Davidson Edition - English",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 2.0,
+ "license": "CC-BY-NC",
+ "versionNotes": "English from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz",
+ "shortVersionTitle": "Koren - Steinsaltz",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה מכות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "How are witnesses rendered conspiring witnesses? This applies in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so, who is a priest, that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza, a yevama who performed the rite of ḥalitza to free herself from the levirate bond. Those testimonies render him a ḥalal (see Leviticus 21:6–7), one disqualified from the priesthood due to flawed lineage. If a second set of witnesses testifies in court and renders the first set conspiring witnesses, one does not say with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: This witness shall be rendered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes as punishment for his false testimony. Likewise, in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so that he is liable to be exiled to a city of refuge for unwittingly killing another (see Numbers 35:11), and a second set of witnesses testifies in court and renders the first set conspiring witnesses, one does not say with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: This witness shall be exiled in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes. In the case of witnesses who said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he divorced his wife and did not give her payment of her marriage contract, and they were then rendered conspiring witnesses, the question arises with regard to the manner in which the sum of their payment is calculated. It is not possible to render the witnesses liable to pay the entire sum of the marriage contract, as they can claim: But isn’t it so that either today or tomorrow, i.e., at some point in the future, he may divorce his wife or die and ultimately he will be liable to give her payment of her marriage contract? That being the case, the witnesses did not conspire to render him liable to pay a sum that he would otherwise not be liable to pay. The sum of their payment is calculated as follows: The court assesses how much money another person would be willing to give in order to purchase the rights to this woman’s marriage contract, cognizant of the uncertainty that if she was widowed or divorced the purchaser will receive payment of the marriage contract but if she dies, her husband will inherit from her, and the one who purchased her marriage contract will receive nothing. In the case of witnesses who said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he owes another person one thousand dinars that he borrowed on the condition that he is to give the money back to him from now until thirty days have passed, and the borrower says that he borrowed that sum but it was on the condition that he is to give the money back to him from now until ten years have passed, and they were rendered conspiring witnesses, here too, it is not possible to render the witnesses liable to pay the entire sum. Rather, the court estimates how much money a person would be willing to give so that he would keep a loan of one thousand dinars in his possession, and one calculates the difference between that sum in a situation where he would be required to give the money back from now until thirty days have passed, and that same sum in a situation where he would be required to give the money back from now until ten years have passed. That difference is the sum that the testimony of the conspiring witnesses sought to have the borrower lose; therefore, it is the sum that they must pay.",
+ "If witnesses said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he is liable to pay another person two hundred dinars, and they were found to be conspiring witnesses, they are flogged, and they pay the money they sought to render him liable to pay. Why do they receive two punishments? It is due to the fact that the source that brings them to liability to receive lashes is not the source that brings them to liability for payment; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Anyone who pays as punishment for a transgression is not flogged for that same transgression.",
+ "Likewise, if witnesses said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he is liable to receive forty lashes, and they were discovered to be conspiring witnesses, they are flogged with eighty lashes; one set of lashes due to violation of the prohibition: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:13), and one set of lashes due to the verse: “And you shall do to him as he conspired” (Deuteronomy 19:19), which is the punishment for conspiring witnesses; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are flogged with only forty lashes, due to the verse “And you shall do to him as he conspired.” When punishing conspiring witnesses based on the verse: “As he conspired to do to his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19), one divides the punishment of money among them, but one does not divide the punishment of lashes among them; each receives thirty-nine lashes. The mishna elaborates: How so? If the witnesses testified about someone that he owes another person two hundred dinars and they were then found to be conspiring witnesses, the witnesses divide the sum among themselves and pay a total of two hundred dinars. But if they testified about someone that he was liable to receive forty lashes and they were then found to be conspiring witnesses, each and every one of the witnesses receives forty lashes. ",
+ "Witnesses are not rendered conspiring witnesses until the witnesses who come to render them conspiring impeach the witnesses themselves and not merely their testimony. How so? A set of witnesses said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he killed a person, and they attested to the precise time and place that the murder took place. Then, a second set of witnesses came to court and said to them: How can you testify about this event? This person who was killed, or this person who killed, was with us, i.e., with the second set of witnesses, on that day in such and such place, which is not the location identified by the first set of witnesses. In that case, although the second set of witnesses contradicted the testimony of the first set, these first witnesses are not rendered conspiring witnesses. But if the second set of witnesses came to court and said to them: How can you testify about that event? You were with us on that day in such and such place. In this case, these first witnesses are rendered conspiring witnesses, and are executed on the basis of their, i.e., the second set’s, testimony.",
+ "If other witnesses, i.e., a third set, came and corroborated the testimony of the first set of witnesses, and the second set of witnesses testified that this third set of witnesses were also with them elsewhere that day and rendered them conspiring witnesses, and similarly, if yet other witnesses, i.e., a fourth set, came and corroborated the testimony of the first set of witnesses and the second set rendered them conspiring witnesses, even if one hundred sets of witnesses were all rendered conspiring witnesses by the same second set of witnesses, all of them are executed on the basis of their testimony, as the authority of two witnesses is equivalent to the authority of numerous witnesses. Rabbi Yehuda says: This situation where a set of witnesses renders all the others conspiring witnesses is a conspiracy [istatit], as there is room for suspicion that they simply decided to impeach all witnesses who offer that testimony, and it is only the first set alone that is executed. ",
+ "The conspiring witnesses are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the verdict of the accused is concluded. This is in contrast to the opinion of the Sadducees, as the Sadducees say: Conspiring witnesses are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the accused is killed on the basis of their testimony, as it is stated: “A life for a life” (Exodus 21:23; see Deuteronomy 19:21). The Rabbis said to the Sadducees: But wasn’t it already stated: “And you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19), and this latter verse indicates that his accused brother is alive? And if so, why is it stated: “A life for a life”? One might have thought that if they are rendered conspiring witnesses from the moment the judges accepted their testimony in court, they will be executed, even though no verdict was concluded. Therefore, the verse states: “A life for a life,” teaching that they are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the verdict of the accused will be concluded, from the moment that the court is on the verge of taking his life.",
+ "It is written: “At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he who is to die be executed” (Deuteronomy 17:6). The question is: If the testimony is valid with two witnesses, why did the verse specify that it is valid with three? Rather, it is to juxtapose and liken three to two: Just as three witnesses can render the two witnesses conspiring witnesses, so too, the two witnesses can render the three wit-nesses conspiring witnesses. And from where is it derived that two witnesses can render even one hundred witnesses conspiring witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Three witnesses.” Since the verse is obviously discussing witnesses, the term witnesses is superfluous, as it could have stated: Two or three. The term “witnesses” teaches that two witnesses can render a set of witnesses conspiring witnesses irrespective of their number. Rabbi Shimon says that three witnesses are mentioned in the verse in order to teach: Just as two witnesses who testified that a person is liable to be executed are not killed for this testimony unless both of them are found to be conspiring witnesses, so too, three witnesses who testified together are not killed unless all three of them are found to be conspiring witnesses. And from where is it derived that the same halakha applies even to one hundred witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Three witnesses.” The superfluous term “witnesses” teaches that the status of all witnesses who come to court as a single set of witnesses is that of one testimony with regard to this halakha. Rabbi Akiva says: The third witness mentioned in this verse does not come for the judges to be lenient concerning him; rather, its mention comes for the judges to be stringent concerning him and to render his halakhic status like that of these two witnesses who testified with him. One could claim that since the testimony of the third witness is superfluous, as the testimony of the other two witnesses sufficed, the third witness and any other witnesses beyond the first two should be exempt. Therefore, the verse teaches that since he testified with them and was rendered a conspiring witness with them, he too is executed. One can learn a moral from this halakha: And if the verse punished one who associates with transgressors with a punishment like the one received by the transgressors, even though his role in the transgression is ancillary, all the more so will God pay a reward to one who associates with those who perform a mitzva like the reward of those who perform the mitzva themselves, even though his role in performing the mitzva is ancillary. ",
+ "The mishna cites another derivation based on the juxtaposition of two to three: And just as with regard to two witnesses, if one of them is found to be a relative or is otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided, as it is no longer the testimony of two witnesses, so too, with regard to three witnesses who came to testify as one set, if one of them is found to be a relative or is otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided, even though two valid witnesses remain. From where is it derived that the same halakha applies even in the case of one hundred witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Witnesses.” Rabbi Yosei says: In what case is this statement, that if one of the three witnesses is disqualified the entire testimony is voided, said? It is said with regard to cases of capital law, which are adjudicated stringently. But with regard to cases of monetary law, which are adjudicated more leniently, even if one of the witnesses is disqualified, the testimony will be validated with the testimony of the rest of the witnesses, and if it is sufficient the case can be adjudicated on that basis. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees and says: If one of the three witnesses is disqualified the entire testimony is voided in both cases of monetary law and cases of capital law. And when does one disqualified witness void the entire testimony? Only when the witnesses forewarned them before they performed the transgression, thereby demonstrating their desire to fill the role of witnesses in that case. But when they did not forewarn them, what shall two brothers do in a case where they, together with others, saw someone who killed a person? Will the murderer escape punishment because two relatives happened to be there at the time of the murder and their presence voids the entire testimony? No, the testimony is voided by the presence of relatives or disqualified witnesses only when their intent was to testify. If that was not their intent, they do not void the testimony.",
+ "In a case where there were two witnesses observing an individual violating a capital transgression from this window in a house, and two observing him from that window in a house, and one person was forewarning the transgressor in the middle between the two sets of witnesses, the halakha depends on the circumstances. In a situation where some of the witnesses observing from the two windows see each other, the testimony of all these witnesses constitutes one testimony, but if they do not see each other, the testimony of these witnesses constitutes two independent testimonies. Therefore, as two independent sets of witnesses, if one of the sets was found to be a set of conspiring witnesses, while the testimony of the other set remained valid, both he, the one accused of violating the capital transgression, and they, the conspiring witnesses, are executed, and the second set, whose testimony remained valid, is exempt. Rabbi Yosei says: Transgressors are never executed unless his two witnesses are the ones forewarning him, as it is stated: “At the mouth of two witnesses…he who is to be put to death shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:6), from which it is derived that it is from the mouths of the two witnesses that the accused must be forewarned, and forewarning issued by someone else is insufficient. Alternatively, from the phrase “at the mouth of two witnesses” one derives that the judges must hear the testimony directly from the witnesses, and the Sanhedrin will not hear testimony from the mouth of an interpreter.",
+ "This mishna continues to discuss the matter of testimony in the case of one who is liable to be executed. Concerning one whose verdict was delivered and he was sentenced to death and he fled, and he then came before the same court that sentenced him, they do not overturn his verdict and retry him. Rather, the court administers the previous verdict. Consequently, in any place where two witnesses will stand and say: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that his verdict was delivered and he was sentenced to death in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, that person shall be executed on the basis of that testimony. The mishna continues: The mitzva to establish a Sanhedrin with the authority to administer capital punishments is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael. A Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seven years is characterized as a destructive tribunal. Since the Sanhedrin would subject the testimony to exacting scrutiny, it was extremely rare for a defendant to be executed. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: This categorization applies to a Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, we would have conducted trials in a manner whereby no person would have ever been executed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In adopting that approach, they too would increase the number of murderers among the Jewish people. The death penalty would lose its deterrent value, as all potential murderers would know that no one is ever executed."
+ ],
+ [
+ "These are the people who are exiled: Anyone who kills a person unintentionally. Whether one is liable to be exiled depends on the particular circumstances of the case: If one was rolling a roller to smooth the covering of mortar that he applied to seal his roof and the roller fell upon a person and killed him, or if one was lowering a barrel from the roof and it fell on a person and killed him, or if he was descending a ladder and he fell on a person and killed him, in all of these cases, he is exiled. But if one was pulling a roller toward him and it fell from his hands upon a person and killed him, or if one was lifting a barrel and the rope was severed and it fell upon a person and killed him, or if one was climbing a ladder and he fell upon a person and killed him, that unintentional murderer is not exiled. This is the principle: Any murderer who kills unintentionally through his downward motion is exiled, and one who kills not through his downward motion is not exiled. If the blade of an ax or hatchet was displaced from its handle, and it flew through the air and killed a person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is not exiled, and the Rabbis say: He is exiled. If part of a tree that is being split flew through the air and killed a person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The murderer is exiled, and the Rabbis say: He is not exiled.",
+ "One who threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person is exiled. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: If after the stone left his hand the other person placed his head out into the public domain and received a blow from the stone, he is exempt, as when he cast the stone into the public domain there was no one there. In the case of one who threw the stone into his courtyard and killed a person, if the victim had permission to enter into there, the murderer is exiled, but if not, he is not exiled, as it is stated with regard to the cities of refuge: “And as one who goes with his neighbor into the forest” (Deuteronomy 19:5), from which it is derived: Just as with regard to a forest, the victim and the assailant both have equal permission to enter there, so too, with regard to all places that the victim and the assailant have permission to enter there, the killer is liable. This serves to exclude the courtyard of the homeowner, where the victim and the assailant do not both have permission to enter there. Since the victim had no right to enter his courtyard, the unintentional murderer is exempt from exile. Abba Shaul says: Another halakha can be derived from that verse: Just as the cutting of wood that is mentioned in the verse is optional, so too, all those liable to be exiled are examples of cases where the unintentional murderer was engaged in an activity that is optional. This serves to exclude a father who strikes his son, and a teacher who oppresses his student, and an agent of the court deputized to flog transgressors. If, in the course of performing the mitzva with which they are charged, they unintentionally murdered the son, the student, or the person being flogged, respectively, they are exempt.",
+ "The father is exiled to a city of refuge due to his unintentional murder of his son. And the son is exiled due to his unintentional murder of his father. Everyone is exiled due to their unintentional murder of a Jew, and a Jew is exiled due to his unintentional murder of any of them, except for the unintentional murder of a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav]. And a ger toshav is exiled only due to his unintentional murder of a ger toshav. A blind person who unintentionally murdered another is not exiled; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: He is exiled. The enemy of the victim is not exiled, as presumably it was not a completely unintentional act. Rabbi Yosei says: Not only is an enemy not exiled, but he is executed by the court, because his halakhic status is like that of one who is forewarned by witnesses not to perform the action, as presumably he performed the action intentionally. Rabbi Shimon says: There is an enemy who is exiled and there is an enemy who is not exiled. This is the principle: In any case where an observer could say he killed knowingly, where circumstances lead to the assumption that it was an intentional act, the enemy is not exiled, even if he claims that he acted unintentionally. And if it is clear that he killed unknowingly, as circumstances indicate that he acted unintentionally, he is exiled, even though the victim is his enemy.",
+ " To where are the unintentional murderers exiled? They are exiled to cities of refuge, to three cities that were in the east bank of the Jordan and to three cities that were in the land of Canaan, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “Three cities shall you give beyond the Jordan and three cities shall you give in the land of Canaan; they shall be cities of refuge” (Numbers 35:14). The mishna comments: Until the three cities of refuge that were in Eretz Yisrael were selected, an unintentional murderer would not be admitted to the three that were in the east bank of the Jordan, even though the latter three were already selected by Moses (see Deuteronomy 4:41), as it is stated: “Six cities of refuge shall they be” (Numbers 35:13), from which it is derived that they do not become cities of refuge until all six of them admit unintentional murderers as one.",
+ "The mishna continues: And roads were aligned for them from this city, i.e., all cities, to that city, i.e., they would pave and straighten the access roads to the cities of refuge, as it is stated: “Prepare for you the road, and divide the borders of your land, which the Lord your God causes you to inherit, into three parts, that every murderer may flee there” (Deuteronomy 19:3). And the court would provide the unintentional murderers fleeing to a city of refuge with two Torah scholars, due to the concern that perhaps the blood redeemer, i.e., a relative of the murder victim seeking to avenge his death, will seek to kill him in transit, and in that case they, the scholars, will talk to the blood redeemer and dissuade him from killing the unintentional murderer. Rabbi Meir says: The unintentional murderer also speaks [medabber] on his own behalf to dissuade the blood redeemer, as it is stated: “And this is the matter [devar] of the murderer, who shall flee there and live” (Deuteronomy 19:4), indicating that the murderer himself speaks.",
+ "Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Initially, either one who killed another unintentionally or one who killed another intentionally would hurry and flee to the cities of refuge, and the court in his city would send for him and would bring him from there to stand trial. For one who was found liable to receive the death penalty in court for intentional murder, the court would execute him, and for one who was not found liable to receive the death penalty, e.g., if they deemed that the death occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, they would free him. For one who was found liable to be exiled, the court would restore him to his place in the city of refuge, as it is stated: “And the congregation shall judge between the murderer and the blood redeemer…and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled there” (Numbers 35:24–25), indicating that he had been in a city of refuge before his trial. The Torah states that an unintentional murderer is required to remain in the city of refuge to which he fled until the death of the High Priest. The mishna elaborates: With regard to High Priests, who were appointed in several different manners, one anointed with the anointing oil, which was the method through which High Priests were consecrated until the oil was sequestered toward the end of the First Temple period; and one consecrated by donning multiple garments, the eight vestments unique to the High Priest, which was the practice during the Second Temple period; and one who received a temporary appointment due to the unfitness of the serving High Priest, who departed from his anointment with the restoration of the serving High Priest to active service, their deaths facilitate the return of the murderer from the city of refuge to his home. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the death of a priest anointed for war to address the soldiers (see Deuteronomy 20:1–7) facilitates the return of the murderer. The mishna continues: Therefore, the mothers of High Priests would provide those exiled to cities of refuge with sustenance and garments so that they would not pray that their sons would die. ",
+ "The more comfortable their lives in the city of refuge, the less urgency they would feel to leave, and the less likely it would be that they would pray for the death of the High Priests. If, after the unintentional murderer’s verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile, the High Priest died, he is not exiled, as the death of the High Priest exempts him from exile. If it was before his verdict was decided that the High Priest died and they appointed another in his place, and thereafter his verdict was decided, he returns from exile with the death of the second High Priest. If the verdict of a murderer was decided at a time when there was no High Priest, and likewise in the cases of one who unintentionally killed a High Priest and in the case of a High Priest who killed unintentionally, the unintentional murderer never leaves the city of refuge. And one who is exiled may not leave the city at all, either for testimony relating to a mitzva, or for testimony relating to monetary matters, or for testimony relating to capital matters. And even if the Jewish people require his services, and even if he is the general of the army of Israel like Joab ben Zeruiah, he never leaves the city of refuge, as it is stated: “And the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled there” (Numbers 35:25), from which it is derived: There shall be his dwelling, there shall be his death, there shall be his burial. The mishna continues: Just as an unintentional murderer is admitted to the city of refuge, so is he admitted to its outskirts, located within the Shabbat boundary. Once he entered the outskirts of the city, the blood redeemer may not kill him. In a case where a murderer emerged beyond the Shabbat boundary of the city of refuge and the blood redeemer found him there, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is a mitzva for the blood redeemer to kill him, and it is optional for every other person to do so. Rabbi Akiva says: It is optional for the blood redeemer, and every other person is liable for killing him. The previous mishna teaches that the halakhic status of the outskirts of the city is like that of the city itself in terms of the unintentional murderer being provided refuge there. The mishna adds: With regard to a tree that stands within the Shabbat boundary of a city of refuge, whose boughs extend outside the boundary, or a tree that stands outside the boundary and its boughs extend inside the boundary, the status of the tree, whether it is considered inside or outside the boundary, in all cases follows the boughs. If an unintentional murderer, exiled to a city of refuge, unintentionally killed a person in the same city, he is exiled from that neighborhood where he resided to another neighborhood within that city. And a Levite who is a permanent resident of a city of refuge and unintentionally killed a person is exiled from that city to another city. ",
+ "Similarly, in the case of a murderer who was exiled to a city of refuge and the people of the city sought to honor him due to his prominence, he shall say to them: I am a murderer. If the residents of the city say to him: We are aware of your status and nevertheless, we wish to honor you, he may accept the honor from them, as it is stated: “And this is the matter [devar] of the murderer” (Deuteronomy 19:4), from which it is derived that the murderer is required to say [ledabber] to them that he is a murderer. He is not required to tell them any more than that. The unintentional murderers would pay a fee to the Levites as rent for their living quarters in the cities of refuge, which were Levite cities; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: They would not pay a fee to them, but would reside rent free, as they are required to live there by Torah law. They also disagreed with regard to the status of the unintentional murderer when he returns home after the death of the High Priest. He returns to the same public office that he occupied prior to his exile; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not return to the office that he occupied."
+ ],
+ [
+ "After enumerating in tractate Sanhedrin those liable to be executed and in the previous chapter those liable to be exiled, the mishna proceeds to enumerate those liable to receive lashes. These are the people who are flogged by Torah law for violating a prohibition: One who engages in intercourse with his sister, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with the wife of his father’s brother, or with a menstruating woman. Likewise, one is flogged in the case of a widow who married a High Priest, a divorcée or a ḥalutza who married an ordinary priest, a mamzeret, i.e., a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship, or a Gibeonite woman who married a Jew of unflawed lineage, and a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage who married a Gibeonite or a mamzer, i.e., a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship. The mishna elaborates: If a woman was both a widow and a divorcée, as after she was widowed she remarried and was divorced, a High Priest is liable to receive two sets of lashes for marrying her due to the violation of two different prohibitions, that of his marrying a widow and that of his marrying a divorced woman. If a woman was both a divorcée and a ḥalutza, from two different men, an ordinary priest who marries her is liable to receive only one set of lashes, due to the violation of one prohibition alone.",
+ "The mishna continues enumerating those liable to receive lashes: A ritually impure person who ate sacrificial food and one who entered the Temple while ritually impure. And one who eats the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal; or blood; or notar, leftover flesh from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption; or piggul, an offering invalidated due to intent to sprinkle its blood, burn its fats on the altar, or consume it, beyond its designated time; or one who partakes of an offering that became impure, is flogged. And one who slaughters a sacrificial animal or sacrifices it on an altar outside the Temple courtyard, and one who eats leavened bread on Passover, and one who eats on Yom Kippur and one who performs labor on Yom Kippur, and one who blends the anointing oil for non-sacred use, and one who blends the incense that was burned on the altar in the Sanctuary for non-sacred use, and one who applies the anointing oil, and one who eats unslaughtered animal or bird carcasses, or tereifot, which are animals or birds with a condition that will lead to their death within twelve months, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, is liable to receive lashes. If one ate untithed produce, i.e., produce from which terumot and tithes were not separated; or first-tithe produce whose teruma of the tithe was not taken; or second-tithe produce or sacrificial food that was not redeemed; he is liable to receive lashes. With regard to the measure for liability for eating forbidden food, the mishna asks: How much does one need to eat from untithed produce and be liable to receive lashes? Rabbi Shimon says: If one ate any amount of untithed produce he is liable to receive lashes. And the Rabbis say: He is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk, which is the minimum measure characterized as eating. Rabbi Shimon said to them: Do you not concede to me with regard to one who eats an ant of any size that he is liable to receive lashes? The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: He receives lashes for eating an ant of any size due to the fact that it is an intact entity in the form of its creation, and that is what the Torah prohibited. Rabbi Shimon said to them: One kernel of wheat is also in the form of its creation, and therefore one should be liable to receive lashes for eating any intact entity.",
+ "In the case of a priest who eats first fruits before the one who brought the fruits to the Temple recited over those fruits the Torah verses that he is obligated to recite (see Deuteronomy 26:3–10); and one who ate offerings of the most sacred order outside the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard, or outside the Temple courtyard; and one who ate offerings of lesser sanctity or second-tithe produce outside the wall of Jerusalem; and also one who breaks the bone of a ritually pure Paschal offering; in all these cases he is flogged with forty lashes. But one who leaves the flesh of the ritually pure Paschal offering until the morning of the fifteenth of Nisan, and one who breaks a bone of a ritually impure Paschal offering, is not flogged with forty lashes.",
+ "With regard to one who takes the mother bird with her fledglings, thereby violating the Torah prohibition: “You shall not take the mother with her fledglings; you shall send the mother, and the fledglings you may take for yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:6–7), Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged for taking the mother bird, and does not send the mother, and the Rabbis say: He sends the mother and is not flogged, as this is the principle: With regard to any prohibition that entails a command to arise and perform a mitzva, he is not liable to receive lashes for its violation.",
+ "One who creates a bald spot upon his head, and one who rounds the edge of his head by shaving the hair adjacent to the ear, and one who mars the edge of his beard, and one who cuts one incision in a display of mourning over the dead, are all liable to receive lashes. If he cut one incision over five dead people, or five incisions over one dead person, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every one. For rounding the edges of his head, one is liable to receive two sets of lashes, one from here, the hair adjacent to one ear, and one from there, the hair adjacent to the other ear. For marring the edges of his beard there are two edges from here, on one side of his face, and two from there, on the other side, and one from below, on his chin. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he removed the hair on all the edges of his beard in one action, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes for all of them. And one is liable for marring the edges of his beard only if he removes the hair with a razor. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he removed the hair with tweezers [malket] or with a plane [rehitni], he is liable to receive lashes. ",
+ "One who imprints a tattoo, by inserting a dye into recesses carved in the skin, is also liable to receive lashes. If one imprinted on the skin with a dye but did not carve the skin, or if one carved the skin but did not imprint the tattoo by adding a dye, he is not liable; he is not liable until he imprints and carves the skin, with ink, or with kohl [keḥol], or with any substance that marks. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: He is liable only if he writes the name there, as it is stated: “And a tattoo inscription you shall not place upon you, I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).",
+ "A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If onlookers said to him: Do not drink, do not drink, forewarning him several times, and he drinks after each forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every drink. ",
+ "If the nazirite was rendering himself impure through exposure to corpses all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not render yourself impure, do not render yourself impure, and he renders himself impure after each forewarning, he is liable for each and every incident. If the nazirite was shaving his hair all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and after each forewarning he shaves, he is liable for each and every time he shaves. If a person was wearing a garment consisting of diverse kinds of wool and linen all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not wear it, do not wear it, and he removes it and dons it after each forewarning, he is liable for each and every time that he dons the garment.",
+ "Apropos the case where one receives several sets of lashes for performing a single action, the mishna continues: There is one who plows a single furrow and is liable to receive lashes for violating eight prohibitions. How so? For plowing with an ox and a donkey, in violation of the prohibition: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10); and they are consecrated, and therefore he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property; and he is plowing diverse kinds in a vineyard; and it is during the Sabbatical Year, when it is prohibited to work the land; and it is on a Festival, when plowing is a prohibited labor; and he is both a priest and a nazirite and is performing the plowing in a place of impurity imparted by a corpse, which is prohibited for both a priest (see Leviticus 21:1) and a nazirite (see Numbers 6:6). Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai says: If he was wearing a garment consisting of diverse kinds of wool and linen while plowing he is also flogged for violating that prohibition. The Sages said to him: That is not a prohibition in the same category as the others, as it is not connected to the act of plowing. Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai said to them: According to that criterion, the fact that he is a nazirite is also not in the same category, as a nazirite and a priest are not flogged for plowing; rather, they are flogged for contracting impurity imparted by a corpse. ",
+ "With how many lashes does one flog a person sentenced to receive lashes? One flogs him with forty lashes less one, as it is stated: “And he shall strike him before him, in accordance with his wickedness, by number. Forty he shall strike him, he shall not add” (Deuteronomy 25:2–3). The mishna joins the end of the first verse and the beginning of the second, forming the phrase: “By number, forty,” which is interpreted as: A sum adjacent to forty. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged with a full forty lashes. And where is he flogged the extra lash? As the mishna proceeds to explain, the thirty-nine lashes are divided into three and administered in three places on the body of the person being flogged; according to Rabbi Yehuda there is one lash that remains. That lash is administered between his shoulders. ",
+ "One assesses the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding only with a number of lashes fit to be divided into three equal groups. If the assessment was that he can survive twenty lashes, he is flogged with eighteen. Likewise, if doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and he is then flogged some of those forty lashes, and then they assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from the additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged eighteen times they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving additional lashes. If one performed a transgression that involves two prohibitions, and they assessed concerning him a single assessment of the number of lashes that he could withstand in punishment for both transgressions, he is flogged in accordance with their assessment and is exempt from any additional lashes. And if not, if he was assessed with regard to the lashes that he could withstand for one transgression, he is flogged and is allowed to heal, and then is flogged again for violating the second prohibition. ",
+ "How do they flog him? He ties the two hands of the person being flogged on this side and that side of a post, and the attendant of the congregation takes hold of his garments to remove them. If they were ripped in the process, they were ripped, and if they were unraveled, they were unraveled, and he continues until he bares his chest. And the stone upon which the attendant stands when flogging is situated behind the person being flogged. The attendant of the congregation stands on it with a strap in his hand. It is a strap of calf hide, and is doubled, one into two, and two into four, and two straps of donkey hide go up and down the doubled strap of calf hide. ",
+ "The length of its handle is one handbreadth, and the width of the straps is one handbreadth, and the strap must be long enough so that its end reaches the top of his abdomen, i.e., his navel, when he is flogged from behind. And the attendant flogs him with one-third of the lashes from the front of him, on his chest, and two one-third portions from behind him, on his back. And he does not flog him when the one receiving lashes is standing, nor when he is sitting; rather, he flogs him when he is hunched, as it is stated: “And the judge shall cause him to lie down, and strike him” (Deuteronomy 25:2), which indicates that the one receiving lashes must be in a position that approximates lying down. And the attendant flogging the one receiving lashes flogs [makeh] him with one hand with all his strength, ",
+ "and the court crier recites the verses: “If you do not observe to perform all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord your God. And the Lord will make your plagues [makkotekha] outstanding, and the plagues of your descendants, and even great plagues, and of long continuance, and severe sicknesses, and of long continuance” (Deuteronomy 28:58–59). And then he returns to the beginning of the verse. He also recites: “And you shall observe the matters of this covenant, and do them, that you may make all that you do to prosper” (Deuteronomy 29:8), and concludes with the verse: “And He is merciful and shall atone for transgression, and destroys not; and many a time does He turn His anger away, and does not stir up all His wrath” (Psalms 78:38), and then returns to the beginning of the verse that starts: “If you do not observe to perform.” If the one being flogged dies at the hand of the attendant, the latter is exempt, because he acted at the directive of the court. If the attendant added for him an additional lash with a strap and he died, the attendant is exiled to a city of refuge on his account, as an unwitting murderer. If the one being flogged involuntarily sullies himself, due to fear or pain, whether with excrement or with urine, he is exempt from further lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says that the threshold of shame for men and women is different: The man is exempted if he sullies himself with excrement, and the woman is exempted even with urine. ",
+ "All those liable to receive karet who were flogged are exempted from their punishment of karet, as it is stated: “And your brother shall be debased before your eyes” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating: Once he is flogged he is as your brother, as his sin has been atoned and he is no longer excised from the Jewish people; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel says: And if for one who performs one transgression his soul is taken for it, as one’s soul can be uprooted from the world for one transgression, for one who performs a single mitzva, it is all the more so the case that his soul will be given to him, as the reward for performing mitzvot is greater than the punishment for performing transgressions. Rabbi Shimon says: It is derived from its own place in the Torah, as it is stated at the conclusion of the passage discussing intercourse with forbidden relatives, which is punishable with karet: “And the souls that perform them shall be excised” (Leviticus 18:29), and it states toward the beginning of that chapter: “That a person shall perform and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is inferred that with regard to one who sits and did not perform a transgression, God gives him a reward like that received by one who performs a mitzva. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that as the verse states: “Only be steadfast to not eat the blood, as the blood is the soul” (Deuteronomy 12:23), it can be derived a fortiori: And if with regard to the blood, which a person’s soul loathes, one who abstains from its consumption receives a reward for that action, as it is written in a subsequent verse: “You shall not eat it, so that it shall be good for you and for your children after you” (Deuteronomy 12:25); then concerning robbery and intercourse with forbidden relatives, which a person’s soul desires and covets, one who abstains from their performance and overcomes his inclination, all the more so that he and his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations will merit a reward.",
+ "Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akashya says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to confer merit upon the Jewish people; therefore, He increased for them Torah and mitzvot, as each mitzva increases merit, as it is stated: “It pleased the Lord for the sake of His righteousness to make the Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). God sought to make the Torah great and glorious by means of the proliferation of mitzvot."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/merged.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..291f782d4dda76379dc704c74327432fcaaa3c4e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/merged.json
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+{
+ "title": "Mishnah Makkot",
+ "language": "en",
+ "versionTitle": "merged",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Makkot",
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "How are witnesses rendered conspiring witnesses? This applies in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so, who is a priest, that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza, a yevama who performed the rite of ḥalitza to free herself from the levirate bond. Those testimonies render him a ḥalal (see Leviticus 21:6–7), one disqualified from the priesthood due to flawed lineage. If a second set of witnesses testifies in court and renders the first set conspiring witnesses, one does not say with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: This witness shall be rendered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes as punishment for his false testimony. Likewise, in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so that he is liable to be exiled to a city of refuge for unwittingly killing another (see Numbers 35:11), and a second set of witnesses testifies in court and renders the first set conspiring witnesses, one does not say with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: This witness shall be exiled in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes. In the case of witnesses who said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he divorced his wife and did not give her payment of her marriage contract, and they were then rendered conspiring witnesses, the question arises with regard to the manner in which the sum of their payment is calculated. It is not possible to render the witnesses liable to pay the entire sum of the marriage contract, as they can claim: But isn’t it so that either today or tomorrow, i.e., at some point in the future, he may divorce his wife or die and ultimately he will be liable to give her payment of her marriage contract? That being the case, the witnesses did not conspire to render him liable to pay a sum that he would otherwise not be liable to pay. The sum of their payment is calculated as follows: The court assesses how much money another person would be willing to give in order to purchase the rights to this woman’s marriage contract, cognizant of the uncertainty that if she was widowed or divorced the purchaser will receive payment of the marriage contract but if she dies, her husband will inherit from her, and the one who purchased her marriage contract will receive nothing. In the case of witnesses who said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he owes another person one thousand dinars that he borrowed on the condition that he is to give the money back to him from now until thirty days have passed, and the borrower says that he borrowed that sum but it was on the condition that he is to give the money back to him from now until ten years have passed, and they were rendered conspiring witnesses, here too, it is not possible to render the witnesses liable to pay the entire sum. Rather, the court estimates how much money a person would be willing to give so that he would keep a loan of one thousand dinars in his possession, and one calculates the difference between that sum in a situation where he would be required to give the money back from now until thirty days have passed, and that same sum in a situation where he would be required to give the money back from now until ten years have passed. That difference is the sum that the testimony of the conspiring witnesses sought to have the borrower lose; therefore, it is the sum that they must pay.",
+ "If witnesses said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he is liable to pay another person two hundred dinars, and they were found to be conspiring witnesses, they are flogged, and they pay the money they sought to render him liable to pay. Why do they receive two punishments? It is due to the fact that the source that brings them to liability to receive lashes is not the source that brings them to liability for payment; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Anyone who pays as punishment for a transgression is not flogged for that same transgression.",
+ "Likewise, if witnesses said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he is liable to receive forty lashes, and they were discovered to be conspiring witnesses, they are flogged with eighty lashes; one set of lashes due to violation of the prohibition: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:13), and one set of lashes due to the verse: “And you shall do to him as he conspired” (Deuteronomy 19:19), which is the punishment for conspiring witnesses; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are flogged with only forty lashes, due to the verse “And you shall do to him as he conspired.” When punishing conspiring witnesses based on the verse: “As he conspired to do to his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19), one divides the punishment of money among them, but one does not divide the punishment of lashes among them; each receives thirty-nine lashes. The mishna elaborates: How so? If the witnesses testified about someone that he owes another person two hundred dinars and they were then found to be conspiring witnesses, the witnesses divide the sum among themselves and pay a total of two hundred dinars. But if they testified about someone that he was liable to receive forty lashes and they were then found to be conspiring witnesses, each and every one of the witnesses receives forty lashes. ",
+ "Witnesses are not rendered conspiring witnesses until the witnesses who come to render them conspiring impeach the witnesses themselves and not merely their testimony. How so? A set of witnesses said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he killed a person, and they attested to the precise time and place that the murder took place. Then, a second set of witnesses came to court and said to them: How can you testify about this event? This person who was killed, or this person who killed, was with us, i.e., with the second set of witnesses, on that day in such and such place, which is not the location identified by the first set of witnesses. In that case, although the second set of witnesses contradicted the testimony of the first set, these first witnesses are not rendered conspiring witnesses. But if the second set of witnesses came to court and said to them: How can you testify about that event? You were with us on that day in such and such place. In this case, these first witnesses are rendered conspiring witnesses, and are executed on the basis of their, i.e., the second set’s, testimony.",
+ "If other witnesses, i.e., a third set, came and corroborated the testimony of the first set of witnesses, and the second set of witnesses testified that this third set of witnesses were also with them elsewhere that day and rendered them conspiring witnesses, and similarly, if yet other witnesses, i.e., a fourth set, came and corroborated the testimony of the first set of witnesses and the second set rendered them conspiring witnesses, even if one hundred sets of witnesses were all rendered conspiring witnesses by the same second set of witnesses, all of them are executed on the basis of their testimony, as the authority of two witnesses is equivalent to the authority of numerous witnesses. Rabbi Yehuda says: This situation where a set of witnesses renders all the others conspiring witnesses is a conspiracy [istatit], as there is room for suspicion that they simply decided to impeach all witnesses who offer that testimony, and it is only the first set alone that is executed. ",
+ "The conspiring witnesses are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the verdict of the accused is concluded. This is in contrast to the opinion of the Sadducees, as the Sadducees say: Conspiring witnesses are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the accused is killed on the basis of their testimony, as it is stated: “A life for a life” (Exodus 21:23; see Deuteronomy 19:21). The Rabbis said to the Sadducees: But wasn’t it already stated: “And you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19), and this latter verse indicates that his accused brother is alive? And if so, why is it stated: “A life for a life”? One might have thought that if they are rendered conspiring witnesses from the moment the judges accepted their testimony in court, they will be executed, even though no verdict was concluded. Therefore, the verse states: “A life for a life,” teaching that they are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the verdict of the accused will be concluded, from the moment that the court is on the verge of taking his life.",
+ "It is written: “At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he who is to die be executed” (Deuteronomy 17:6). The question is: If the testimony is valid with two witnesses, why did the verse specify that it is valid with three? Rather, it is to juxtapose and liken three to two: Just as three witnesses can render the two witnesses conspiring witnesses, so too, the two witnesses can render the three wit-nesses conspiring witnesses. And from where is it derived that two witnesses can render even one hundred witnesses conspiring witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Three witnesses.” Since the verse is obviously discussing witnesses, the term witnesses is superfluous, as it could have stated: Two or three. The term “witnesses” teaches that two witnesses can render a set of witnesses conspiring witnesses irrespective of their number. Rabbi Shimon says that three witnesses are mentioned in the verse in order to teach: Just as two witnesses who testified that a person is liable to be executed are not killed for this testimony unless both of them are found to be conspiring witnesses, so too, three witnesses who testified together are not killed unless all three of them are found to be conspiring witnesses. And from where is it derived that the same halakha applies even to one hundred witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Three witnesses.” The superfluous term “witnesses” teaches that the status of all witnesses who come to court as a single set of witnesses is that of one testimony with regard to this halakha. Rabbi Akiva says: The third witness mentioned in this verse does not come for the judges to be lenient concerning him; rather, its mention comes for the judges to be stringent concerning him and to render his halakhic status like that of these two witnesses who testified with him. One could claim that since the testimony of the third witness is superfluous, as the testimony of the other two witnesses sufficed, the third witness and any other witnesses beyond the first two should be exempt. Therefore, the verse teaches that since he testified with them and was rendered a conspiring witness with them, he too is executed. One can learn a moral from this halakha: And if the verse punished one who associates with transgressors with a punishment like the one received by the transgressors, even though his role in the transgression is ancillary, all the more so will God pay a reward to one who associates with those who perform a mitzva like the reward of those who perform the mitzva themselves, even though his role in performing the mitzva is ancillary. ",
+ "The mishna cites another derivation based on the juxtaposition of two to three: And just as with regard to two witnesses, if one of them is found to be a relative or is otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided, as it is no longer the testimony of two witnesses, so too, with regard to three witnesses who came to testify as one set, if one of them is found to be a relative or is otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided, even though two valid witnesses remain. From where is it derived that the same halakha applies even in the case of one hundred witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Witnesses.” Rabbi Yosei says: In what case is this statement, that if one of the three witnesses is disqualified the entire testimony is voided, said? It is said with regard to cases of capital law, which are adjudicated stringently. But with regard to cases of monetary law, which are adjudicated more leniently, even if one of the witnesses is disqualified, the testimony will be validated with the testimony of the rest of the witnesses, and if it is sufficient the case can be adjudicated on that basis. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees and says: If one of the three witnesses is disqualified the entire testimony is voided in both cases of monetary law and cases of capital law. And when does one disqualified witness void the entire testimony? Only when the witnesses forewarned them before they performed the transgression, thereby demonstrating their desire to fill the role of witnesses in that case. But when they did not forewarn them, what shall two brothers do in a case where they, together with others, saw someone who killed a person? Will the murderer escape punishment because two relatives happened to be there at the time of the murder and their presence voids the entire testimony? No, the testimony is voided by the presence of relatives or disqualified witnesses only when their intent was to testify. If that was not their intent, they do not void the testimony.",
+ "In a case where there were two witnesses observing an individual violating a capital transgression from this window in a house, and two observing him from that window in a house, and one person was forewarning the transgressor in the middle between the two sets of witnesses, the halakha depends on the circumstances. In a situation where some of the witnesses observing from the two windows see each other, the testimony of all these witnesses constitutes one testimony, but if they do not see each other, the testimony of these witnesses constitutes two independent testimonies. Therefore, as two independent sets of witnesses, if one of the sets was found to be a set of conspiring witnesses, while the testimony of the other set remained valid, both he, the one accused of violating the capital transgression, and they, the conspiring witnesses, are executed, and the second set, whose testimony remained valid, is exempt. Rabbi Yosei says: Transgressors are never executed unless his two witnesses are the ones forewarning him, as it is stated: “At the mouth of two witnesses…he who is to be put to death shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:6), from which it is derived that it is from the mouths of the two witnesses that the accused must be forewarned, and forewarning issued by someone else is insufficient. Alternatively, from the phrase “at the mouth of two witnesses” one derives that the judges must hear the testimony directly from the witnesses, and the Sanhedrin will not hear testimony from the mouth of an interpreter.",
+ "This mishna continues to discuss the matter of testimony in the case of one who is liable to be executed. Concerning one whose verdict was delivered and he was sentenced to death and he fled, and he then came before the same court that sentenced him, they do not overturn his verdict and retry him. Rather, the court administers the previous verdict. Consequently, in any place where two witnesses will stand and say: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that his verdict was delivered and he was sentenced to death in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, that person shall be executed on the basis of that testimony. The mishna continues: The mitzva to establish a Sanhedrin with the authority to administer capital punishments is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael. A Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seven years is characterized as a destructive tribunal. Since the Sanhedrin would subject the testimony to exacting scrutiny, it was extremely rare for a defendant to be executed. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: This categorization applies to a Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, we would have conducted trials in a manner whereby no person would have ever been executed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In adopting that approach, they too would increase the number of murderers among the Jewish people. The death penalty would lose its deterrent value, as all potential murderers would know that no one is ever executed."
+ ],
+ [
+ "These are the people who are exiled: Anyone who kills a person unintentionally. Whether one is liable to be exiled depends on the particular circumstances of the case: If one was rolling a roller to smooth the covering of mortar that he applied to seal his roof and the roller fell upon a person and killed him, or if one was lowering a barrel from the roof and it fell on a person and killed him, or if he was descending a ladder and he fell on a person and killed him, in all of these cases, he is exiled. But if one was pulling a roller toward him and it fell from his hands upon a person and killed him, or if one was lifting a barrel and the rope was severed and it fell upon a person and killed him, or if one was climbing a ladder and he fell upon a person and killed him, that unintentional murderer is not exiled. This is the principle: Any murderer who kills unintentionally through his downward motion is exiled, and one who kills not through his downward motion is not exiled. If the blade of an ax or hatchet was displaced from its handle, and it flew through the air and killed a person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is not exiled, and the Rabbis say: He is exiled. If part of a tree that is being split flew through the air and killed a person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The murderer is exiled, and the Rabbis say: He is not exiled.",
+ "One who threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person is exiled. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: If after the stone left his hand the other person placed his head out into the public domain and received a blow from the stone, he is exempt, as when he cast the stone into the public domain there was no one there. In the case of one who threw the stone into his courtyard and killed a person, if the victim had permission to enter into there, the murderer is exiled, but if not, he is not exiled, as it is stated with regard to the cities of refuge: “And as one who goes with his neighbor into the forest” (Deuteronomy 19:5), from which it is derived: Just as with regard to a forest, the victim and the assailant both have equal permission to enter there, so too, with regard to all places that the victim and the assailant have permission to enter there, the killer is liable. This serves to exclude the courtyard of the homeowner, where the victim and the assailant do not both have permission to enter there. Since the victim had no right to enter his courtyard, the unintentional murderer is exempt from exile. Abba Shaul says: Another halakha can be derived from that verse: Just as the cutting of wood that is mentioned in the verse is optional, so too, all those liable to be exiled are examples of cases where the unintentional murderer was engaged in an activity that is optional. This serves to exclude a father who strikes his son, and a teacher who oppresses his student, and an agent of the court deputized to flog transgressors. If, in the course of performing the mitzva with which they are charged, they unintentionally murdered the son, the student, or the person being flogged, respectively, they are exempt.",
+ "The father is exiled to a city of refuge due to his unintentional murder of his son. And the son is exiled due to his unintentional murder of his father. Everyone is exiled due to their unintentional murder of a Jew, and a Jew is exiled due to his unintentional murder of any of them, except for the unintentional murder of a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav]. And a ger toshav is exiled only due to his unintentional murder of a ger toshav. A blind person who unintentionally murdered another is not exiled; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: He is exiled. The enemy of the victim is not exiled, as presumably it was not a completely unintentional act. Rabbi Yosei says: Not only is an enemy not exiled, but he is executed by the court, because his halakhic status is like that of one who is forewarned by witnesses not to perform the action, as presumably he performed the action intentionally. Rabbi Shimon says: There is an enemy who is exiled and there is an enemy who is not exiled. This is the principle: In any case where an observer could say he killed knowingly, where circumstances lead to the assumption that it was an intentional act, the enemy is not exiled, even if he claims that he acted unintentionally. And if it is clear that he killed unknowingly, as circumstances indicate that he acted unintentionally, he is exiled, even though the victim is his enemy.",
+ " To where are the unintentional murderers exiled? They are exiled to cities of refuge, to three cities that were in the east bank of the Jordan and to three cities that were in the land of Canaan, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “Three cities shall you give beyond the Jordan and three cities shall you give in the land of Canaan; they shall be cities of refuge” (Numbers 35:14). The mishna comments: Until the three cities of refuge that were in Eretz Yisrael were selected, an unintentional murderer would not be admitted to the three that were in the east bank of the Jordan, even though the latter three were already selected by Moses (see Deuteronomy 4:41), as it is stated: “Six cities of refuge shall they be” (Numbers 35:13), from which it is derived that they do not become cities of refuge until all six of them admit unintentional murderers as one.",
+ "The mishna continues: And roads were aligned for them from this city, i.e., all cities, to that city, i.e., they would pave and straighten the access roads to the cities of refuge, as it is stated: “Prepare for you the road, and divide the borders of your land, which the Lord your God causes you to inherit, into three parts, that every murderer may flee there” (Deuteronomy 19:3). And the court would provide the unintentional murderers fleeing to a city of refuge with two Torah scholars, due to the concern that perhaps the blood redeemer, i.e., a relative of the murder victim seeking to avenge his death, will seek to kill him in transit, and in that case they, the scholars, will talk to the blood redeemer and dissuade him from killing the unintentional murderer. Rabbi Meir says: The unintentional murderer also speaks [medabber] on his own behalf to dissuade the blood redeemer, as it is stated: “And this is the matter [devar] of the murderer, who shall flee there and live” (Deuteronomy 19:4), indicating that the murderer himself speaks.",
+ "Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Initially, either one who killed another unintentionally or one who killed another intentionally would hurry and flee to the cities of refuge, and the court in his city would send for him and would bring him from there to stand trial. For one who was found liable to receive the death penalty in court for intentional murder, the court would execute him, and for one who was not found liable to receive the death penalty, e.g., if they deemed that the death occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, they would free him. For one who was found liable to be exiled, the court would restore him to his place in the city of refuge, as it is stated: “And the congregation shall judge between the murderer and the blood redeemer…and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled there” (Numbers 35:24–25), indicating that he had been in a city of refuge before his trial. The Torah states that an unintentional murderer is required to remain in the city of refuge to which he fled until the death of the High Priest. The mishna elaborates: With regard to High Priests, who were appointed in several different manners, one anointed with the anointing oil, which was the method through which High Priests were consecrated until the oil was sequestered toward the end of the First Temple period; and one consecrated by donning multiple garments, the eight vestments unique to the High Priest, which was the practice during the Second Temple period; and one who received a temporary appointment due to the unfitness of the serving High Priest, who departed from his anointment with the restoration of the serving High Priest to active service, their deaths facilitate the return of the murderer from the city of refuge to his home. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the death of a priest anointed for war to address the soldiers (see Deuteronomy 20:1–7) facilitates the return of the murderer. The mishna continues: Therefore, the mothers of High Priests would provide those exiled to cities of refuge with sustenance and garments so that they would not pray that their sons would die. ",
+ "The more comfortable their lives in the city of refuge, the less urgency they would feel to leave, and the less likely it would be that they would pray for the death of the High Priests. If, after the unintentional murderer’s verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile, the High Priest died, he is not exiled, as the death of the High Priest exempts him from exile. If it was before his verdict was decided that the High Priest died and they appointed another in his place, and thereafter his verdict was decided, he returns from exile with the death of the second High Priest. If the verdict of a murderer was decided at a time when there was no High Priest, and likewise in the cases of one who unintentionally killed a High Priest and in the case of a High Priest who killed unintentionally, the unintentional murderer never leaves the city of refuge. And one who is exiled may not leave the city at all, either for testimony relating to a mitzva, or for testimony relating to monetary matters, or for testimony relating to capital matters. And even if the Jewish people require his services, and even if he is the general of the army of Israel like Joab ben Zeruiah, he never leaves the city of refuge, as it is stated: “And the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled there” (Numbers 35:25), from which it is derived: There shall be his dwelling, there shall be his death, there shall be his burial. The mishna continues: Just as an unintentional murderer is admitted to the city of refuge, so is he admitted to its outskirts, located within the Shabbat boundary. Once he entered the outskirts of the city, the blood redeemer may not kill him. In a case where a murderer emerged beyond the Shabbat boundary of the city of refuge and the blood redeemer found him there, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is a mitzva for the blood redeemer to kill him, and it is optional for every other person to do so. Rabbi Akiva says: It is optional for the blood redeemer, and every other person is liable for killing him. The previous mishna teaches that the halakhic status of the outskirts of the city is like that of the city itself in terms of the unintentional murderer being provided refuge there. The mishna adds: With regard to a tree that stands within the Shabbat boundary of a city of refuge, whose boughs extend outside the boundary, or a tree that stands outside the boundary and its boughs extend inside the boundary, the status of the tree, whether it is considered inside or outside the boundary, in all cases follows the boughs. If an unintentional murderer, exiled to a city of refuge, unintentionally killed a person in the same city, he is exiled from that neighborhood where he resided to another neighborhood within that city. And a Levite who is a permanent resident of a city of refuge and unintentionally killed a person is exiled from that city to another city. ",
+ "Similarly, in the case of a murderer who was exiled to a city of refuge and the people of the city sought to honor him due to his prominence, he shall say to them: I am a murderer. If the residents of the city say to him: We are aware of your status and nevertheless, we wish to honor you, he may accept the honor from them, as it is stated: “And this is the matter [devar] of the murderer” (Deuteronomy 19:4), from which it is derived that the murderer is required to say [ledabber] to them that he is a murderer. He is not required to tell them any more than that. The unintentional murderers would pay a fee to the Levites as rent for their living quarters in the cities of refuge, which were Levite cities; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: They would not pay a fee to them, but would reside rent free, as they are required to live there by Torah law. They also disagreed with regard to the status of the unintentional murderer when he returns home after the death of the High Priest. He returns to the same public office that he occupied prior to his exile; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not return to the office that he occupied."
+ ],
+ [
+ "After enumerating in tractate Sanhedrin those liable to be executed and in the previous chapter those liable to be exiled, the mishna proceeds to enumerate those liable to receive lashes. These are the people who are flogged by Torah law for violating a prohibition: One who engages in intercourse with his sister, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with the wife of his father’s brother, or with a menstruating woman. Likewise, one is flogged in the case of a widow who married a High Priest, a divorcée or a ḥalutza who married an ordinary priest, a mamzeret, i.e., a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship, or a Gibeonite woman who married a Jew of unflawed lineage, and a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage who married a Gibeonite or a mamzer, i.e., a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship. The mishna elaborates: If a woman was both a widow and a divorcée, as after she was widowed she remarried and was divorced, a High Priest is liable to receive two sets of lashes for marrying her due to the violation of two different prohibitions, that of his marrying a widow and that of his marrying a divorced woman. If a woman was both a divorcée and a ḥalutza, from two different men, an ordinary priest who marries her is liable to receive only one set of lashes, due to the violation of one prohibition alone.",
+ "The mishna continues enumerating those liable to receive lashes: A ritually impure person who ate sacrificial food and one who entered the Temple while ritually impure. And one who eats the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal; or blood; or notar, leftover flesh from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption; or piggul, an offering invalidated due to intent to sprinkle its blood, burn its fats on the altar, or consume it, beyond its designated time; or one who partakes of an offering that became impure, is flogged. And one who slaughters a sacrificial animal or sacrifices it on an altar outside the Temple courtyard, and one who eats leavened bread on Passover, and one who eats on Yom Kippur and one who performs labor on Yom Kippur, and one who blends the anointing oil for non-sacred use, and one who blends the incense that was burned on the altar in the Sanctuary for non-sacred use, and one who applies the anointing oil, and one who eats unslaughtered animal or bird carcasses, or tereifot, which are animals or birds with a condition that will lead to their death within twelve months, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, is liable to receive lashes. If one ate untithed produce, i.e., produce from which terumot and tithes were not separated; or first-tithe produce whose teruma of the tithe was not taken; or second-tithe produce or sacrificial food that was not redeemed; he is liable to receive lashes. With regard to the measure for liability for eating forbidden food, the mishna asks: How much does one need to eat from untithed produce and be liable to receive lashes? Rabbi Shimon says: If one ate any amount of untithed produce he is liable to receive lashes. And the Rabbis say: He is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk, which is the minimum measure characterized as eating. Rabbi Shimon said to them: Do you not concede to me with regard to one who eats an ant of any size that he is liable to receive lashes? The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: He receives lashes for eating an ant of any size due to the fact that it is an intact entity in the form of its creation, and that is what the Torah prohibited. Rabbi Shimon said to them: One kernel of wheat is also in the form of its creation, and therefore one should be liable to receive lashes for eating any intact entity.",
+ "In the case of a priest who eats first fruits before the one who brought the fruits to the Temple recited over those fruits the Torah verses that he is obligated to recite (see Deuteronomy 26:3–10); and one who ate offerings of the most sacred order outside the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard, or outside the Temple courtyard; and one who ate offerings of lesser sanctity or second-tithe produce outside the wall of Jerusalem; and also one who breaks the bone of a ritually pure Paschal offering; in all these cases he is flogged with forty lashes. But one who leaves the flesh of the ritually pure Paschal offering until the morning of the fifteenth of Nisan, and one who breaks a bone of a ritually impure Paschal offering, is not flogged with forty lashes.",
+ "With regard to one who takes the mother bird with her fledglings, thereby violating the Torah prohibition: “You shall not take the mother with her fledglings; you shall send the mother, and the fledglings you may take for yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:6–7), Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged for taking the mother bird, and does not send the mother, and the Rabbis say: He sends the mother and is not flogged, as this is the principle: With regard to any prohibition that entails a command to arise and perform a mitzva, he is not liable to receive lashes for its violation.",
+ "One who creates a bald spot upon his head, and one who rounds the edge of his head by shaving the hair adjacent to the ear, and one who mars the edge of his beard, and one who cuts one incision in a display of mourning over the dead, are all liable to receive lashes. If he cut one incision over five dead people, or five incisions over one dead person, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every one. For rounding the edges of his head, one is liable to receive two sets of lashes, one from here, the hair adjacent to one ear, and one from there, the hair adjacent to the other ear. For marring the edges of his beard there are two edges from here, on one side of his face, and two from there, on the other side, and one from below, on his chin. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he removed the hair on all the edges of his beard in one action, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes for all of them. And one is liable for marring the edges of his beard only if he removes the hair with a razor. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he removed the hair with tweezers [malket] or with a plane [rehitni], he is liable to receive lashes. ",
+ "One who imprints a tattoo, by inserting a dye into recesses carved in the skin, is also liable to receive lashes. If one imprinted on the skin with a dye but did not carve the skin, or if one carved the skin but did not imprint the tattoo by adding a dye, he is not liable; he is not liable until he imprints and carves the skin, with ink, or with kohl [keḥol], or with any substance that marks. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: He is liable only if he writes the name there, as it is stated: “And a tattoo inscription you shall not place upon you, I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).",
+ "A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If onlookers said to him: Do not drink, do not drink, forewarning him several times, and he drinks after each forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every drink. ",
+ "If the nazirite was rendering himself impure through exposure to corpses all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not render yourself impure, do not render yourself impure, and he renders himself impure after each forewarning, he is liable for each and every incident. If the nazirite was shaving his hair all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and after each forewarning he shaves, he is liable for each and every time he shaves. If a person was wearing a garment consisting of diverse kinds of wool and linen all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not wear it, do not wear it, and he removes it and dons it after each forewarning, he is liable for each and every time that he dons the garment.",
+ "Apropos the case where one receives several sets of lashes for performing a single action, the mishna continues: There is one who plows a single furrow and is liable to receive lashes for violating eight prohibitions. How so? For plowing with an ox and a donkey, in violation of the prohibition: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10); and they are consecrated, and therefore he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property; and he is plowing diverse kinds in a vineyard; and it is during the Sabbatical Year, when it is prohibited to work the land; and it is on a Festival, when plowing is a prohibited labor; and he is both a priest and a nazirite and is performing the plowing in a place of impurity imparted by a corpse, which is prohibited for both a priest (see Leviticus 21:1) and a nazirite (see Numbers 6:6). Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai says: If he was wearing a garment consisting of diverse kinds of wool and linen while plowing he is also flogged for violating that prohibition. The Sages said to him: That is not a prohibition in the same category as the others, as it is not connected to the act of plowing. Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai said to them: According to that criterion, the fact that he is a nazirite is also not in the same category, as a nazirite and a priest are not flogged for plowing; rather, they are flogged for contracting impurity imparted by a corpse. ",
+ "With how many lashes does one flog a person sentenced to receive lashes? One flogs him with forty lashes less one, as it is stated: “And he shall strike him before him, in accordance with his wickedness, by number. Forty he shall strike him, he shall not add” (Deuteronomy 25:2–3). The mishna joins the end of the first verse and the beginning of the second, forming the phrase: “By number, forty,” which is interpreted as: A sum adjacent to forty. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged with a full forty lashes. And where is he flogged the extra lash? As the mishna proceeds to explain, the thirty-nine lashes are divided into three and administered in three places on the body of the person being flogged; according to Rabbi Yehuda there is one lash that remains. That lash is administered between his shoulders. ",
+ "One assesses the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding only with a number of lashes fit to be divided into three equal groups. If the assessment was that he can survive twenty lashes, he is flogged with eighteen. Likewise, if doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and he is then flogged some of those forty lashes, and then they assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from the additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged eighteen times they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving additional lashes. If one performed a transgression that involves two prohibitions, and they assessed concerning him a single assessment of the number of lashes that he could withstand in punishment for both transgressions, he is flogged in accordance with their assessment and is exempt from any additional lashes. And if not, if he was assessed with regard to the lashes that he could withstand for one transgression, he is flogged and is allowed to heal, and then is flogged again for violating the second prohibition. ",
+ "How do they flog him? He ties the two hands of the person being flogged on this side and that side of a post, and the attendant of the congregation takes hold of his garments to remove them. If they were ripped in the process, they were ripped, and if they were unraveled, they were unraveled, and he continues until he bares his chest. And the stone upon which the attendant stands when flogging is situated behind the person being flogged. The attendant of the congregation stands on it with a strap in his hand. It is a strap of calf hide, and is doubled, one into two, and two into four, and two straps of donkey hide go up and down the doubled strap of calf hide. ",
+ "The length of its handle is one handbreadth, and the width of the straps is one handbreadth, and the strap must be long enough so that its end reaches the top of his abdomen, i.e., his navel, when he is flogged from behind. And the attendant flogs him with one-third of the lashes from the front of him, on his chest, and two one-third portions from behind him, on his back. And he does not flog him when the one receiving lashes is standing, nor when he is sitting; rather, he flogs him when he is hunched, as it is stated: “And the judge shall cause him to lie down, and strike him” (Deuteronomy 25:2), which indicates that the one receiving lashes must be in a position that approximates lying down. And the attendant flogging the one receiving lashes flogs [makeh] him with one hand with all his strength, ",
+ "and the court crier recites the verses: “If you do not observe to perform all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord your God. And the Lord will make your plagues [makkotekha] outstanding, and the plagues of your descendants, and even great plagues, and of long continuance, and severe sicknesses, and of long continuance” (Deuteronomy 28:58–59). And then he returns to the beginning of the verse. He also recites: “And you shall observe the matters of this covenant, and do them, that you may make all that you do to prosper” (Deuteronomy 29:8), and concludes with the verse: “And He is merciful and shall atone for transgression, and destroys not; and many a time does He turn His anger away, and does not stir up all His wrath” (Psalms 78:38), and then returns to the beginning of the verse that starts: “If you do not observe to perform.” If the one being flogged dies at the hand of the attendant, the latter is exempt, because he acted at the directive of the court. If the attendant added for him an additional lash with a strap and he died, the attendant is exiled to a city of refuge on his account, as an unwitting murderer. If the one being flogged involuntarily sullies himself, due to fear or pain, whether with excrement or with urine, he is exempt from further lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says that the threshold of shame for men and women is different: The man is exempted if he sullies himself with excrement, and the woman is exempted even with urine. ",
+ "All those liable to receive karet who were flogged are exempted from their punishment of karet, as it is stated: “And your brother shall be debased before your eyes” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating: Once he is flogged he is as your brother, as his sin has been atoned and he is no longer excised from the Jewish people; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel says: And if for one who performs one transgression his soul is taken for it, as one’s soul can be uprooted from the world for one transgression, for one who performs a single mitzva, it is all the more so the case that his soul will be given to him, as the reward for performing mitzvot is greater than the punishment for performing transgressions. Rabbi Shimon says: It is derived from its own place in the Torah, as it is stated at the conclusion of the passage discussing intercourse with forbidden relatives, which is punishable with karet: “And the souls that perform them shall be excised” (Leviticus 18:29), and it states toward the beginning of that chapter: “That a person shall perform and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is inferred that with regard to one who sits and did not perform a transgression, God gives him a reward like that received by one who performs a mitzva. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that as the verse states: “Only be steadfast to not eat the blood, as the blood is the soul” (Deuteronomy 12:23), it can be derived a fortiori: And if with regard to the blood, which a person’s soul loathes, one who abstains from its consumption receives a reward for that action, as it is written in a subsequent verse: “You shall not eat it, so that it shall be good for you and for your children after you” (Deuteronomy 12:25); then concerning robbery and intercourse with forbidden relatives, which a person’s soul desires and covets, one who abstains from their performance and overcomes his inclination, all the more so that he and his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations will merit a reward.",
+ "Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akashya says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to confer merit upon the Jewish people; therefore, He increased for them Torah and mitzvot, as each mitzva increases merit, as it is stated: “It pleased the Lord for the sake of His righteousness to make the Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). God sought to make the Torah great and glorious by means of the proliferation of mitzvot."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "versions": [
+ [
+ "William Davidson Edition - English",
+ "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "heTitle": "משנה מכות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/Hebrew/Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/Hebrew/Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e4b615545add7d31f8a63c28d56d232323c82e8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/Hebrew/Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri.json
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+ "language": "he",
+ "title": "Mishnah Makkot",
+ "versionSource": "https://archive.org/details/MishnaCorrectedKaufman00WHOLE",
+ "versionTitle": "Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "PD",
+ "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+ "actualLanguage": "he",
+ "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+ "isSource": true,
+ "isPrimary": true,
+ "direction": "rtl",
+ "heTitle": "משנה מכות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "א\nכֵּיצַד הָעֵדִים נֶעֱשִׂים זוֹמְמִים? \n\"מְעִידִין אָנוּ עַל אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה\", \nאוֹ \"בֶן חֲלוּצָה\", \nאֵין אוֹמְרִים, \nיֵעָשֶׂה זֶה בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה תַחְתָּיו, \nאֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. \n\"מְעִידִין אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לִגָּלוֹת\", \nאֵין אוֹמְרִים, יִגָּלֶה זֶה תַחְתָּיו, \nאֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. \n\"מְעִידִין אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, \nשֶׁגֵּרַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ\"; \nוַהֲלֹא בֵין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין לְמָחָר, \nסוֹפוֹ לִתֶּן לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ! \nאוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּתָהּ שֶׁלָּזוֹ, \nשֶׁאִם נִתְאַלְמָנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרָשָׁה, \nוְאִם מֵתָה יִירָשֶׁנָּה בַעְלָהּ. \n\nב\n\"מְעִידִין אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, \nשֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ אֶלֶף זוּז, \nעַל מְנָת לִתְּנָן מִכָּן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם\", \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"מִכָּן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים\", \nאוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה [לִתֵּן] וְיִהְיוּ אֶלֶף זוּז בְּיָדוֹ, \nבֵּין נוֹתְנָן מִכָּן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, \nבֵּין נוֹתְנָן מִכָּן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים. \n",
+ "ג\n\"מְעִידִים אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, \nשֶׁחַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז\", \nוְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, \nלוֹקִין וּמְשַׁלְּמִין, \nשֶׁלֹּא הַשֵּׁם מְבִיאָן לִידֵי מַכּוֹת מְבִיאָן לִידֵי תַשְׁלוּמִין. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nכָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם אֵינוּ לוֹקֶה. \n",
+ "ד\n\"מְעִידִין אָנוּ אֶת פְּלוֹנִי, \nשֶׁהוּא חַיָּב מַלְקוּת אַרְבָּעִים\", \nנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, \nלוֹקִין שְׁמוֹנִים, מִשֵּׁם (שמות כ,יג) \n\"לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר\", \nוּמִשֵּׁם (דברים יט,יט) \n\"וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו\", \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nאֵינָן לוֹקִין אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים. \n\nה\nמְשַׁלְּשִׁים בַּמָּמוֹן וְאֵין מְשַׁלְּשִׁים בַּמַּכּוֹת. \nכֵּיצַד? \nהֵעִידוּהוּ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז, \nנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִים, \nמְשַׁלְּשִׁין בֵּינֵיהֶן. \nהֵעִידוּהוּ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב מַלְקוּת אַרְבָּעִים, \nנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, \nכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. \n",
+ "ו\nאֵין הָעֵדִין נֶעֱשִׂין זוֹמְמִים \nעַד שֶׁיָּזַמּוּ אֶת עַצְמָן. \nכֵּיצַד? \nאָמְרוּ: \n\"מְעִידִין אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, \nשֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ\". \nאָמְרוּ לָהֶן: \n\"הֵיאָךְ אַתֶּם מְעִידִין? \nשֶׁהֲרֵי הַנֶּהֱרָג זֶה אוֹ הַהוֹרֵג, \nהָיָה עִמָּנוּ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם בִּמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי\", \nאֵין אֵלּוּ זוֹמְמִים. \nאֲבָל, אָמְרוּ לָהֶן: \n\"הֵיאָךְ אַתֶּם מְעִידִין, \nשֶׁהֲרֵי אַתֶּם הֱיִיתֶם עִמָּנוּ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם בִּמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי\", \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ זוֹמְמִין, \nוְנֶהֱרָגִין עַל פִּיהֶן. \n",
+ "ז\nבָּאוּ אֲחֵרִים וֶהֱזִימוּם, בָּאוּ אֲחֵרִים וֶהֱזִימוּם, \nאֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, כֻּלָּם יֵהָרֵגוּ. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאַסְטָסִיס הִיא זוֹ, \nאֵינָה נֶהֱרֶגֶת אֶלָּא כַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בִלְבַד. \n",
+ "ח\nאֵין הָעֵדִין הַזּוֹמְמִים נֶהֱרָגִין, \nעַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין. \nשֶׁהֲרֵי הַצַּדּוּקִין אוֹמְרִים: \nעַד שֶׁיֵּהָרֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא כד,יח) \n\"נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ\". \nאָמְרוּ לָהֶן חֲכָמִים: \nוַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר: (דברים יט,יט) \n\"וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׁוֹת לְאָחִיו\", \nוַהֲרֵי אָחִיו קַיָּם! \nוְאִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר \"נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ\"? \nיָכוֹל מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ עֵדוּתָן יֵהָרֵגוּ? \nתַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר \"נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ\", \nהָא אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין. \n",
+ "ט\n(דברים יז,ו) \"עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים \nאוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת\". \nאִם מִתְקַיֶּמֶת הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁנַיִם, \nלָמָּה פָרַט הַכָּתוּב בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה? \nאֶלָּא לְהַקִּישׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה לִשְׁנַיִם: \nוּמַה שְּׁלֹשָׁה מְזָמְמִין אֶת הַשְּׁנַיִם, <מזמין>\nאַף הַשְּׁנַיִם יָזַמּוּ אֶת הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה. \nוּמְנַיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה? \nתַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר \"עֵדִים\". \n\nי\nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nמַה שְּׁנַיִם אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן זוֹמְמִים, \nאַף שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן זוֹמְמִין.\nמְנַיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה? \nתַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר \"עֵדִים\". \n\nיא\nרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: \nלֹא בָא הַשְּׁלִישִׁי אֶלָּא לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו, \nוְלַעֲשׁוֹת דִּינוֹ כַיּוֹצֵא בָאֵלּוּ. \nוְאִם כָּךְ עָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב \nלַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה כְּעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, \nעַל אַחַת כַּמָּה יְשַׁלֵּם שָׂכָר \nלַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה כְּעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה. \n",
+ "יב\nמַה שְּׁנַיִם, נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, \nעֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, \n[אַף שְׁלֹשָׁה, נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, \nעֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה.]\nמְנַיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה? \nתַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר \"עֵדִים\". \n\nיג\nאָמַר רְבִּי יוֹסֵה: \nבַּמֵּי דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִין? \nבְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. \nאֲבָל בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, \nתִּתְקַיֵּם הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁאָר. \nרְבִּי אוֹמֵר: \nאֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, \nבִּזְמַן שֶׁהִתְרוּ בָהֶן. \nאֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בָהֶן, \nמַה יַּעֲשׁוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִים, \nשֶׁרָאוּ כְאַחַת שֶׁהָרַג זֶה אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ? \n",
+ "יד\nהָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זוֹ, \nוּשְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זוֹ, \nוְאֶחָד מַתְרֶה בוֹ בָאֶמְצַע, \nבִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן רוֹאִין אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ, \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עֵדוּת אַחַת. \nוְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵדִיּוֹת. \nלְפִיכָךְ, אִם נִמְצֵאת אַחַת מֵהֶן זוֹמֶמֶת, \nהִיא וָהֵן נֶהֱרָגִין, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה פְטוּרָה. \n\nיה\nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה בִרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nלְעוֹלָם אֵינוּ נֶהֱרָג, \nעַד שֶׁיְּהוּ פִי שְׁנֵי עֵדָיו מַתְרִים בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יז,ו) \n\"עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים\". \nדָּבָר אַחֵר: \n\"עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים\", \nשֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא סַנְהֶדְרִין שׁוֹמַעַת כְּמִפִּי הַתָּרְגְּמָן. \n",
+ "יו\nמִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ וּבָרַח, \nוּבָא לִפְנֵי אוֹתוֹ בֵית דִּין, \nאֵין סוֹתְרִין אֶת דִּינוֹ. \nבְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ: \n\"מְעִידִין אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ [פְּלוֹנִי, \nשֶׁ]נִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁלִּפְלוֹנִי, \nוּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו\", \nהֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג. \n\nיז\nסַנְהֶדְרִין נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. <ובחוץ> \nסֶנְהֶדְרִין הוֹרֶגֶת אֶחָד בַּשָּׁבוּעַ, \nוְנִקְרֵאת חַבְלָנִית; \nרְבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: \nאֶחָד לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה. \nרְבִּי טַרְפוֹן וּרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמְרִים: \nאִלּוּ הָיִינוּ בְסֶנְהֶדְרִין, \nלֹא נֶהֱרַג בָּהּ אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם. \nרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: \nאַף הֵן מַרְבִּין שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nוְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַגּוֹלִין: \nהַהוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה: \nהָיָה מַעְגִּיל בַּמַּעְגֵּילָה, נָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ, \nהָיָה מְשַׁלְשֵׁל בֶּחָבִית, וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ, \nהָיָה יוֹרֵד בַּסֻּלָּם, וְנָפַל עָלָיו וַהֲרָגוֹ, \nהֲרֵי זֶה גוֹלֶה. \nאֲבָל אִם הָיָה מוֹשֵׁךְ בַּמַּעְגֵּילָה, \nוְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ, \nהָיָה דוֹלֶה בֶחָבִית, \nוְנִפְסַק הַחֶבֶל וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ, \nהָיָה עוֹלֶה בַסֻּלָּם, וְנָפַל עָלָיו וַהֲרָגוֹ, \nהֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוּ גוֹלֶה. \nזֶה הַכְּלָל: \nכָּל שֶׁכְּדֶרֶךְ הוֹרָדָתוֹ, גּוֹלֶה, \nוְשֶׁלֹּא כְדֶרֶךְ הוֹרָדָתוֹ, אֵינוּ גוֹלֶה. \n\nב\nנִשְׁמַט הַבַּרְזֶל מִקַּנָּתוֹ וְהָרַג, \nרְבִּי אוֹמֵר: \nאֵינוּ גוֹלֶה. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nגּוֹלֶה. \nמִן הָעֵץ הַמִּתְבַּקֵּעַ, \nרְבִּי אוֹמֵר: \nגּוֹלֶה. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nאֵינוּ גוֹלֶה. \n",
+ "ג\nזָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהָרַג, \nהֲרֵי זֶה גוֹלֶה. \nרְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: \nמִכְּשֶׁיָּצַאת הָאֶבֶן מִיָּדוֹ, \nוְהוֹצִיא הַלָּא אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְקִבְּלָהּ, \nהֲרֵי זֶה פָטוּר. \n\nד <ג>\nזָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן לַחֲצֵרוֹ וְהָרַג, \nאִם יֵשׁ רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק לִכָּנֵס לַשָּׁם, גּוֹלֶה, \nוְאִם לָאו, אֵינוּ גוֹלֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יט,ה) \n\"וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בַיַּעַר\", \nמַה הַיַּעַר רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק וְלַמַּזִּיק וּלְהִכָּנֵס לַשָּׁם, \nיָצָא חֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, \nשֶׁאֵין רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק לִכָּנֵס לַשָּׁם. \nאַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: \nמַה חֲטָבַת עֵצִים רְשׁוּת, \nיָצָא הָאָב הַמַּכֶּה אֶת בְּנוֹ, \nוְהָרַב הָרוֹדֶה בְתַלְמִידוֹ, \nוּשְׁלוּחַ בֵּית דִּין. \n",
+ "ה\nהָאָב גּוֹלֶה עַל יְדֵי הַבֵּן, \nוְהַבֵּן גּוֹלֶה עַל יְדֵי הָאָב. \nוְהַכֹּל גּוֹלִים עַל יְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, \nוְיִשְׂרָאֵל גּוֹלִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן, \nחוּץ מֵעַל יְדֵי גֵר תּוֹשָׁב. \nוְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב אֵינוּ גוֹלֶה אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי גֵר תּוֹשָׁב. \n\nו\nהַסּוֹמֵא אֵינוּ גוֹלֶה. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי יְהוּדָה. \nוּרְבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: \nגּוֹלֶה. \nהַשּׂוֹנֵא אֵינוּ גוֹלֶה. \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה בִרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nהַשּׂוֹנֵא נֶהֱרָג, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמוּעָד. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nיֵשׁ שׁוֹנֵא גוֹלֶה וְיֵשׁ שׁוֹנֵא שֶׁאֵינוּ גוֹלֶה. \nכָּל שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר, \nלְדַעַת הָרַג, אֵינוּ גוֹלֶה, \nוְשֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת הָרַג, הֲרֵי זֶה גוֹלֶה. \n",
+ "ז\nלְאֵיכָן גּוֹלִין? לְעִיר מִקְלָט. \nלְשָׁלוֹשׁ שֶׁבְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וּלְשָׁלוֹשׁ שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (במדבר לה,יד) \n\"אֵת שְׁלֹשׁ הֶעָרִים תִּתְּנוּ מֵעֵבֶר לַיַּרְדֵּן, \nוְאֵת שְׁלֹשׁ הֶעָרִים תִּתְּנוּ בְאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן\". \nעַד שֶׁלֹּא נִבְחֲרוּ שָׁלוֹשׁ שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, \nלֹא הָיוּ שָׁלוֹשׁ שֶׁבְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן קוֹלְטוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (במדבר לה,יג) \n\"שֵׁשׁ עָרֵי מִקְלָט תִּהְיֶינָה\", \nשֶׁיְּהוּ שֶׁשְׁתָּן קוֹלְטוֹת כְּאַחַת. \n",
+ "ח\nוּמְכֻוָּנוֹת לָהֶן דְּרָכִים מִזּוֹ לָזוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יט,ג) \n\"תָּכִין לְךָ הַדֶּרֶךְ וְשִׁלַּשְׁתָּ אֶת גְּבוּל אַרְצְךָ \nאֲשֶׁר יַנְחִילְךָ יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ, \nוְהָיָה לָנוּס שָׁמָּה כָּל רֹצֵחַ.\" \nוּמוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, \nשֶׁמֵּא יַהַרְגֶנּוּ בַדֶּרֶךְ, וִידַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו. \nרְבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: \nהוּא מְדַבֵּר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יט,ד) \n\"וְזֶה דְבַר הָרֹצֵחַ\". \n",
+ "ט\nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה בִרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nכַּתְּחִלָּה, אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד, \nמְקַדְּמִין לְעִיר מִקְלָט, \nוּבֵית דִּין שׁוֹלְחִין וּמְבִיאִין אוֹתָן מִשָּׁם. \nמִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיַּב מִיתָה, הֲרָגוּהוּ; <מִשֶּׁנִּתְחַיַּב>\nוּמִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיַּב מִיתָה, פְּטָרוּהוּ. \nוּמִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיַּב גָּלוּת, \nמַחְזִירִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (במדבר לה,כה) \n\"וְהֵשִׁיבוּ אתוֹ הָעֵדָה אֶל עִיר מִקְלָטוֹ אֲשֶׁר נָס שָׁמָּה\".\nאֶחָד מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, \nוְאֶחָד מְרֻבֵּה בְגָדִים, \nוְאֶחָד שֶׁעָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחָתוֹ. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאַף מָשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה מַחְזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ. \nלְפִיכָךְ אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁלַּכֹּהֲנִים מְסַפְּקוֹת לָהֶן מִחְיָה וּכְסוּת, \nכְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפַּלְּלוּ עַל בְּנֵיהֶן שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ. \n\nי\nנִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וּמֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, \nהֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוּ גוֹלֶה. \nאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ מֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, \nוּמִנּוּ כֹהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, \nלְאַחַר מִכֵּן נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ, \nחוֹזֵר לְמִיתָתוֹ שֶׁלַּשֵּׁנִי. \n",
+ "יא\nנִגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְלֹא כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, \nהַהוֹרֵג כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, \nוְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהָרַג, \nאֵינוּ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם. \nאֵינוּ יוֹצֵא לֹא לְעֵדוּת מִצְוָה, \nוְלֹא לְעֵדוּת מָמוֹן, \nוְלֹא לְעֵדוּת נְפָשׁוֹת. \nאֲפִלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל צְרִיכִין לוֹ, \nוַאֲפִלּוּ שַׂר צְבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּיוֹאָב בֶּן צְרוּיָה, \nאֵינוּ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (במדבר לה,כה) \n\"אֲשֶׁר נָס שָׁמָּה\", \nשָׁם תְּהֵי דִירָתוֹ וְשָׁם תְּהֵא מִיתָתוֹ, \nוְשָׁם תְּהֵא קְבוּרָתוֹ. \n\nיב\nכַּשֵּׁם שֶׁהָעִיר קוֹלֶטֶת, כָּךְ תְּחוּמָהּ קוֹלֵט. \nרוֹצֵחַ שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, וּמְצָאוֹ גוֹאֵל הַדָּם, \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: \nמִצְוָה בְיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם, \nוּרְשׁוּת בְּיַד כָּל הָאָדָם; \nרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: \nרְשׁוּת בְּיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם, \nוְכָל אָדָן אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו. \n\nיג\nאִילָן שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם, \nוְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, \nאוֹ עוֹמֵד חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, \nוְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה לְתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם, \nהַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַנּוֹף. \nהָרַג בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, \nגּוֹלֶה מִשְּׁכוּנָה לִשְׁכוּנָה. \nוּבֶן לֵוִי גּוֹלֶה מֵעִיר לָעִיר. \n",
+ "יד\n(כַּיוֹצֵא בוֹ) רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁגָּלָה לְעִיר מִקְלָטוֹ, \nוְרָצוּ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר לְכַבְּדוֹ, \nיֹאמַר לָהֶם \"רוֹצֵחַ אָנִי\". \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ \"אַף עַל פִּי כֵן\", \nיְקַבֵּל מֵהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יט,ד) \n\"וְזֶה דְבַר הָרֹצֵחַ\". \n\nיה\nוּמַעֲלוֹת הָיוּ שָׂכָר לַלְוִיִּם. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי יְהוּדָה. \nרְבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: \nלֹא הָיוּ מַעֲלִים לָהֶן שָׂכָר. \nוְחוֹזֵר לִשְׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָהּ. <לסררה> \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוּרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nלֹא הָיָה חוֹזֵר לִשְׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָהּ. <לסררה> \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nאֵלּוּ הֵן הַלּוֹקִין: \nהַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, \nוְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, \nוְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, \nוְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, \nוְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, \nוְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, \nוְעַל הַנִּדָּה; \nאַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, \nגְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, \n[מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, \nבַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר.] \nאַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה, \nחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. \nגְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. \n",
+ "ב\nטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, \nוְהַבָּא אֶל מִקְדָּשׁ טָמֵא, \nוְהָאוֹכֵל חֵלֶב, וָדָם, וְנוֹתָר, וּפִגּוּל. \nהַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמַּעֲלֶה בַחוּץ, \nהָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח, \nוְהָאוֹכֵל וְהָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, \nוְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, \nוְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת, \nוְהַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, \nוְהָאוֹכֵל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, וּשְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים; <ורמסים>\nאָכַל טֶבֶל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ, \nוּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. \nכַּמָּה יֹאכַל מִן הַטֶּבֶל וִיהֵא חַיָּב? <כמא>\nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nכָּל שֶׁהוּא. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nכַּזַּיִת. \nאָמַר לָהֶן רְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: \nאֵין אַתֶּם מוֹדִים לִי בְאוֹכֵל נְמָלָה כָל שֶׁהוּא, \nשֶׁהוּא חַיָּב? \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nמִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְבִרְיָתָהּ; \nאָמַר לָהֶן: \nאַף חִטָּה אַחַת כְּבִרְיָתָהּ. \n",
+ "ג\nהָאוֹכֵל בִּכּוּרִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרָא עֲלֵיהֶן, \nקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים, \nקָדָשִׁין קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי חוּץ לַחוֹמָה, \nהַשּׁוֹבֵר אֶת הָעֶצֶם בְּפֶסַח טָהוֹר, \nהֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. \nאֲבָל הַמּוֹתִיר וְהַשּׁוֹבֵר בַּטָּמֵא, \nאֵינוּ לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. \n",
+ "ד\nהַנּוֹטֵל אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים, \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nלוֹקֶה, וְאֵינוּ מְשַׁלֵּחַ. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nמְשַׁלֵּחַ, וְאֵינוּ לוֹקֶה. \nזֶה הַכְּלָל: \nכָּל מִצְוַת בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ קוּם וַעֲשֵׂה, \nאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ. \n",
+ "ה\nהַקּוֹרֵחַ קָרְחָה בְרֹאשׁוֹ, \nוְהַמַּקִּיף פְּאַת רֹאשׁוֹ, \nוְהַמַּשְׁחִית פְּאַת זְקָנוֹ, \nהַסּוֹרֵט סִרְטָה אַחַת עַל הַמֵּת, \nחַיָּב. \nסָרַט סִרְטָה אַחַת עַל חֲמִשָּׁה מֵתִים, \nאוֹ חָמֵשׁ סְרִיטוֹת עַל מֵת אֶחָד, \nחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \nחַיָּב עַל הָרֹאשׁ שְׁתַּיִם, \nאַחַת מִכָּן וְאַחַת מִכָּן; \nעַל הַזָּקָן, שְׁתַּיִם מִכָּן, וְאַחַת מִלְּמַטָּן. \nרְבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: \nאִם נְטָלוֹ כֻלּוֹ כְאַחַת, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. \nוְאֵינוּ חַיָּב, עַד שֶׁיִטְּלֶנּוּ בַתַּעַר. \nרְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: \nאֲפִלּוּ לִקְּטוֹ בַמַּלְקֶטֶת, אוֹ בְרָהִיטְנֵי, \nחַיָּב. \n",
+ "ו\nהַכּוֹתֵב כְּתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע. \nכָּתַב וְלֹא קִעְקַע, \nקִעְקַע וְלֹא כָתַב, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב וִיקַעְקַע בַּדְּיוֹ, \nוּבַכֹּחַל, וּבְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רוֹשֵׁם. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשֵּׁם רְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב שֵׁם הַשֵּׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא יט,כח) \n\"וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע לֹא תִתְּנוּ בָכֶם אֲנִי יי\". \n",
+ "ז\nנָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה שׁוֹתֶה בַיַּיִן כָּל הַיּוֹם, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \n\"אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה\", \"אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה!\" \nוְהוּא שׁוֹתֶה, \nחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \n",
+ "ח\nהָיָה מִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים כָּל הַיּוֹם, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \n\"אַל תִּטַּמֵּא, אַל תִּטַּמֵּא!\" \nוְהוּא מִטַּמֵּא, \nחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \n\nט\nהָיָה מְגַלֵּחַ כָּל הַיּוֹם, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \n\"אַל תְּגַלַּח, אַל תְּגַלַּח!\" \nוְהוּא מְגַלֵּחַ, \nחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \n\nי\nהָיָה לוֹבֵשׁ בַּכִּלְאַיִם כָּל הַיּוֹם, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \n\"אַל תִּלְבַּשׁ, אַל תִּלְבַּשׁ!\" \nוְהוּא פּוֹשֵׁט וְלוֹבֵשׁ, \nחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \n",
+ "יא\nיֵשׁ חוֹרֵשׁ תֶּלֶם אֶחָד, \nוְחַיָּב עָלָיו מִשֵּׁם שְׁמוֹנָה לָאוִין: <לוים>\nהַחוֹרֵשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר, וְהֵן מֻקְדָּשִׁין, \nכִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם, וּשְׁבִיעִית, וְיוֹם טוֹב, \nוְכֹהֵן וְנָזִיר וְאַף בֵּית טֻמְאָה. \nחֲנַנְיָא בֶן חֲכִינַי אוֹמֵר: \nאַף הַלּוֹבֵשׁ כִּלְאַיִם. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nאֵינוּ הַשֵּׁם. \nאָמַר לָהֶן: \nאַף לֹא הַנָּזִיר הוּא הַשֵּׁם. \n",
+ "יב\nוְכַמָּה מַלְקִים אוֹתוֹ? \nאַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים כה,ב-ג) \n\"בְּמִסְפַּר אַרְבָּעִים\", \nמִנְיָן שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לְאַרְבָּעִים. <מְנַיִין> \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאַרְבָּעִים שְׁלֵמוֹת הוּא לוֹקֶה. \nוְאֵיכָן הוּא לוֹקֶה אֶת הַיְתֵרָה? \nבֵּין כְּתֵפָיו. \n",
+ "יג\nאֵין עוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ \nאֶלָּא בְמַכּוֹת רְאוּיוֹת לְהִשְׁתַּלֵּשׁ. \nעֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים, \nלָקָה מִקְצָת, אָמְרוּ: \n\"אֵינוּ יָכוֹל לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים\", \nפָּטוּר. \nעֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, \nמִשֶּׁלָּקָה אָמְרוּ: \n\"יָכוֹל הוּא לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים\", \nפָּטוּר. \nעָבַר עֲבֵרָה שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁנֵי לָאוִים: \nעֲמָדוּהוּ עֹמֶד אֶחָד, לוֹקֶה וּפָטוּר. \nאִם לָאו, \nלוֹקֶה וּמִתְרַפֵּא וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקֶה. \n",
+ "יד\nכֵּיצַד מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ? \nכּוֹפֵת שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עַל הָעַמּוּד הֵילָךְ וְהֵילָךְ, \nחַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדָיו, \nאִם נִקְרָעוּ נִקְרָעוּ, וְאִם נִפְרָמוּ נִפְרָמוּ, \n[עַד שֶׁהוּא מְגַלֶּה אֶת לִבּוֹ.] \nוְהָאֶבֶן נְתוּנָה מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, \nחַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת עוֹמֵד עָלֶיהָ, \nוּרְצוּעָה שֶׁלָּעֵגֶל בְּיָדוֹ, \nכְּפוּלָה אֶחָד לִשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁנַיִם לְאַרְבָּעָה, \nוּשְׁתֵּי רְצוּעוֹת עוֹלוֹת וְיוֹרְדוֹת בָּהּ. \n",
+ "יה\nיָדָהּ טֶפַח, וְרָחְבָּהּ טֶפַח, \nוְרֹאשָׁהּ מַגַּעַת פִּי כְרֵסוֹ. \nוּמַכֶּה אוֹתוֹ שָׁלִישׁ מִלְּפָנָיו, \nוּשְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת מִלַּאֲחוֹרָיו, \nוְאֵינוּ מַכֶּה אוֹתוֹ לֹא עוֹמֵד וְלֹא יוֹשֵׁב, \nאֶלָּא מֻטֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברם כה,ב) \n\"וְהִפִּילוֹ\". \nוְהַמַּכֶּה מַכֶּה בְאַחַת יָדוֹ בְּכָל כֹּחוֹ. \n",
+ "יו\nוְהַקּוֹרֵא קוֹרֵא: (דברים כח,נח-נט)\n\"אִם לֹא תִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת \nאֶת כָּל דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת, \nהַכְּתֻבִים בַּסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה, \nלְיִרְאָה אֶת הַשֵּׁם הַנִּכְבָּד וְהַנּוֹרָא הַזֶּה, \nאֵת יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ. \nוְהִפְלָא יי אֶת מַכֹּתְךָ וְאֵת מַכּוֹת זַרְעֶךָ, \nמַכּוֹת גְּדֹלֹת וְנֶאֱמָנוֹת, \nוָחֳלָיִם רָעִים וְנֶאֱמָנִים.\" \nוְחוֹזֵר לִתְחִלַּת הַמִּקְרָא. \nאִם מֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ, \nפָּטוּר. \nהוֹסִיף לוֹ עוֹד רְצוּעָה אַחַת, וּמֵת, \nהֲרֵי זֶה גוֹלֶה עַל יָדָיו. \nנִתְקַלְקַל, בֵּין בָּרֵאִי בֵין בַּמַּיִם, \nפָּטוּר. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nהָאִישׁ בָּרֵאִי, וְהָאִשָּׁה בַמַּיִם. \n",
+ "יז\nכָּל חַיְבֵי כָרֵתוֹת שֶׁלָּקוּ, \nנִפְטָרוּ יְדֵי כָרֵתָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים כה,ג) \n\"וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ\", \nמִשֶּׁלָּקָה, הֲרֵי הוּא כְאָחִיךָ. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶן גַּמְלִיאֵל. \nאָמַר רְבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶן גַּמְלִיאֵל: \nמָה, אִם הָעוֹבֵר עֲבֵרָה אַחַת, \nנַפְשׁוֹ נוֹטֶלֶת עָלֶיהָ, \nהָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת, \nעַל אַחַת כַּמָּה שֶׁתִּנָּתֶן לוֹ נַפְשׁוֹ. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nמִמְּקוֹמוֹ הוּא לָמֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא יח,כט) \n\"וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשֹׂת מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם.\" \nוְאוֹמֵר: (ויקרא יח,ה) \n\"אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם\", <אוֹתָן הָאָדָם וְחַי בָּהֶן>\nהָא, כָּל הַיּוֹשֵׁב וְלֹא עָבַר עֲבֵרָה, \nנוֹתְנִין לוֹ שָׂכָר כְּעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה. \n\nיח\nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּרְבִּי אוֹמֵר: \nהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: (דברים יב,כג) \n\"רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם, \nכִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ\". \nוּמָה, אִם הַדָּם, \nשֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁלָּאָדָם חַתָּה הֵימֶנּוּ, \nהַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ מְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר, \nגָּזֵל וַעֲרָיוֹת, \nשֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁלָּאָדָן מִתְאַוָּה לָהֶן וּמְחַמְּדַתָּן, \nהַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵהֶן, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה \nשֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לוֹ וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו וּלְדוֹרֵי דּוֹרוֹתָיו, \nעַד סוֹף כָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת. \n",
+ "יט\nרְבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶן עֲקַשְׁיָה אוֹמֵר: \nרָצָה הַמָקוֹם בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְזַכּוֹת אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, \nלְפִיכָךְ הִרְבָּה לָהֶן תּוֹרָה וּמִצְוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ישעיה מב,כא) \n\"יי חָפֵץ לְמַעַן צִדְקוֹ, יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר\". \n"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/Hebrew/Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/Hebrew/Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..230c4648babdd47180a35f5726a7ed13641c1d15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/Hebrew/Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913.json
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+ "language": "he",
+ "title": "Mishnah Makkot",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001741739",
+ "versionTitle": "Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 2.0,
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+ "heversionSource": "http://primo.nli.org.il/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=NLI&docId=NNL_ALEPH00174173",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה, מהדורת בית דפוס ראם, וילנא 1913",
+ "actualLanguage": "he",
+ "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+ "isBaseText": true,
+ "isSource": true,
+ "isPrimary": true,
+ "direction": "rtl",
+ "heTitle": "משנה מכות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "כיצד העדים נעשים זוממין. מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שהוא בן גרושה או בן חלוצה. אין אומרים יעשה זה בן גרושה או בן חלוצה תחתיו. אלא לוקה ארבעים. מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שהוא חייב לגלות. אין אומרים יגלה זה תחתיו. אלא לוקה ארבעים. מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שגירש את אשתו ולא נתן לה כתובתה. והלא בין היום ובין למחר. סופו ליתן לה כתובתה. אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בכתובתה של זו. שאם נתאלמנה או נתגרשה. ואם מתה יירשנה בעלה. מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שהוא חייב לחברו אלף זוז על מנת ליתנו לו מכאן ועד שלשים יום. והוא אומר מכאן ועד עשר שנים. אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן ויהיו בידו אלף זוז. בין נותנן מכאן ועד שלשים יום. בין נותנן מכאן ועד עשר שנים: ",
+ "מעידין אנו באיש פלוני. שחייב לחברו מאתים זוז. ונמצאו זוממין. לוקין ומשלמין שלא השם המביאו לידי מכות. מביאו לידי תשלומין. דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים כל המשלם אינו לוקה: ",
+ "מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שהוא חייב מלקות ארבעים. ונמצאו זוממים. לוקין שמונים. משום (שמות כ, יג) לא תענה ברעך עד שקר. ומשום (דברים יט, יט) ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם דברי ר' מאיר וחכמים אומרים אין לוקין אלא ארבעים. משלשין בממון. ואין משלשין במכות. כיצד העידוהו שהוא חייב לחברו מאתים זוז. ונמצאו זוממין משלשין ביניהם אבל אם העידוהו שהוא חייב מלקות ארבעים ונמצאו זוממין כל אחד ואחד לוקה ארבעים: ",
+ "אין העדים נעשים זוממין עד שיזומו את עצמן. כיצד אמרו מעידין אנו באיש פלוני. שהרג את הנפש. אמרו להם היאך אתם מעידין שהרי נהרג זה או ההורג היה עמנו אותו היום במקום פלוני אין אלו זוממין. אבל אמרו להם היאך אתם מעידין. שהרי אתם הייתם עמנו אותו היום במקום פלוני. הרי אלו זוממין ונהרגין על פיהם: ",
+ "באו אחרים והזימום. באו אחרים והזימום אפילו מאה כולם יהרגו רבי יהודה אומר איסטסית היא זו ואינה נהרגת אלא כת הראשונה בלבד: ",
+ "אין העדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיגמר הדין. שהרי הצדוקין אומרים עד שיהרג. שנאמר נפש תחת נפש. אמרו להם חכמים והלא כבר נאמר (דברים יט, יט) ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו. והרי אחיו קיים. ואם כן למה נאמר נפש תחת נפש. יכול משעה שקבלו עדותן. יהרגו. תלמוד לומר נפש תחת נפש הא אינן נהרגין עד שיגמר הדין: ",
+ "על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים יומת המת (דברים יז, ו). אם מתקיימת העדות בשנים למה פרט הכתוב בשלשה אלא להקיש שלשה לשנים. מה שלשה מזימין את השנים אף השנים יזומו את השלשה. ומנין אפילו מאה תלמוד לומר עדים. רבי שמעון אומר מה שנים אינן נהרגין עד שיהו שניהם זוממין. אף שלשה אינן נהרגין עד שיהיו שלשתן זוממין ומנין אפילו מאה תלמוד לומר עדים. רבי עקיבא אומר לא בא השלישי אלא להחמיר עליו ולעשות דינו כיוצא באלו ואם כן ענש הכתוב לנטפל לעוברי עבירה. כעוברי עבירה. על אחת כמה וכמה ישלם שכר לנטפל לעושי מצוה. כעושי מצוה: ",
+ "מה שנים נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול עדותן בטלה אף שלשה נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול עדותן בטלה. מנין אפילו מאה תלמוד לומר עדים. אמר רבי יוסי במה דברים אמורים בדיני נפשות. אבל בדיני ממונות. תתקיים העדות בשאר. רבי אומר אחד דיני ממונות ואחד דיני נפשות בזמן שהתרו בהן. אבל בזמן שלא התרו בהן. מה יעשו שני אחין שראו באחד שהרג את הנפש: ",
+ "היו שנים רואין אותו מחלון זה. ושנים רואין אותו מחלון זה. ואחד מתרה בו באמצע. בזמן שמקצתן רואין אלו את אלו. הרי אלו עדות אחת. ואם לאו הרי אלו שתי עדיות. לפיכך אם נמצאת אחת מהן זוממת הוא והן נהרגין והשניה פטורה רבי יוסי אומר לעולם אין נהרגין עד שיהו פי שני עדיו מתרין בו שנאמר (דברים יז, ו) על פי שנים עדים. דבר אחר על פי שנים עדים שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן: ",
+ "מי שנגמר דינו וברח. ובא לפני אותו בית דין אין סותרים את דינו כל מקום שיעמדו שנים ויאמרו מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שנגמר דינו בבית דין של פלוני. ופלוני ופלוני עדיו. הרי זה יהרג. סנהדרין נוהגת בארץ ובחוצה לארץ סנהדרין ההורגת אחד בשבוע. נקראת חובלנית. רבי אליעזר בן עזריה אומר אחד לשבעים שנה. רבי טרפון ורבי עקיבא אומרים אילו היינו בסנהדרין. לא נהרג אדם מעולם רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף הן מרבין שופכי דמים בישראל: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "אלו הן הגולין. ההורג נפש בשגגה. היה מעגל במעגילה ונפלה עליו והרגתו. היה משלשל בחבית ונפלה עליו והרגתו. היה יורד בסולם ונפל עליו והרגו. הרי זה גולה. אבל אם היה מושך במעגילה ונפלה עליו והרגתו. היה דולה בחבית ונפסק החבל ונפלה עליו והרגתו. היה עולה בסולם ונפל עליו והרגו הרי זה אינו גולה. זה הכלל כל שבדרך ירידתו גולה. ושלא בדרך ירידתו אינו גולה. נשמט הברזל מקתו והרג. רבי אומר אינו גולה. וחכמים אומרים גולה. מן העץ המתבקע. רבי אומר גולה. וחכמים אומרים אינו גולה: ",
+ "הזורק אבן לרשות הרבים והרג. הרי זה גולה. ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר אם מכשיצאתה האבן מידו הוציא הלז את ראשו וקבלה הרי זה פטור. זרק את האבן לחצרו והרג אם יש רשות לניזק ליכנס לשם גולה. ואם לאו אינו גולה. שנאמר (דברים יט, ה) ואשר יבא את רעהו ביער. מה היער רשות לניזק למזיק ליכנס לשם יצא חצר בעל הבית שאין רשות לניזק ולמזיק ליכנס לשם. אבא שאול אומר מה חטבת עצים רשות. יצא האב המכה את בנו. והרב הרודה את תלמידו ושליח בית דין: ",
+ "האב גולה על ידי הבן. והבן גולה על ידי האב. הכל גולין על ידי ישראל. וישראל גולין על ידיהן. חוץ מעל ידי גר תושב. וגר תושב אינו גולה. אלא על ידי גר תושב. הסומא אינו גולה דברי ר' יהודה. ר' מאיר אומר גולה. השונא אינו גולה. רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר השונא נהרג מפני שהוא כמועד. רבי שמעון אומר יש שונא גולה ויש שונא שאינו גולה. זה הכלל כל שהוא יכול לומר לדעת הרג. אינו גולה. ושלא לדעת הרג. הרי זה גולה: ",
+ "להיכן גולין לערי מקלט לשלש שבעבר הירדן ולשלש שבארץ כנען. שנאמר (במדבר לה, יד) את שלש הערים תתנו מעבר לירדן ואת שלש הערים תתנו בארץ כנען וגומר. עד שלא נבחרו שלש שבארץ ישראל. לא היו שלש שבעבר הירדן קולטות. שנאמר (במדבר לה, יג) שש ערי מקלט תהיינה. עד שיהיו ששתן קולטות כאחד: ",
+ "ומכוונות להן דרכים מזו לזו. שנאמר (דברים יט, ג) תכין לך הדרך ושלשת וגומר. ומוסרין להן שני תלמידי חכמים שמא יהרגנו בדרך. וידברו אליו ר' מאיר אומר אף הוא מדבר על ידי עצמו. שנאמר (דברים יט, ד) וזה דבר הרוצח. ",
+ "ר' יוסי בר יהודה אומר. בתחלה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד מקדימין לערי מקלט ובית דין שולחין ומביאין אותו משם. מי שנתחייב מיתה בבית דין. הרגוהו. ושלא נתחייב מיתה. פטרוהו. מי שנתחייב גלות. מחזירין אותו למקומו. שנאמר (במדבר לה, כה) והשיבו אותו העדה אל עיר מקלטו וגומר. אחד משוח בשמן המשחה. ואחד המרובה בבגדים. ואחד שעבר ממשיחתו מחזירין את הרוצח. רבי יהודה אומר. אף משוח מלחמה. מחזיר את הרוצח. לפיכך אמותיהן של כהנים מספקות להן מחיה וכסות כדי שלא יתפללו על בניהם שימותו. משנגמר דינו מת כהן גדול. הרי זה אינו גולה. אם עד שלא נגמר דינו מת כהן גדול ומנו אחר תחתיו. ולאחר מכן נגמר דינו. חוזר במיתתו של שני: ",
+ "נגמר דינו בלא כהן גדול. ההורג כהן גדול. וכהן גדול שהרג. אינו יוצא משם לעולם. ואינו יוצא לא לעדות מצוה. ולא לעדות ממון. ולא לעדות נפשות. ואפילו ישראל צריכים לו. ואפילו שר צבא ישראל. כיואב בן צרויה. אינו יוצא משם לעולם. שנאמר (במדבר לה, כה) אשר נס שמה. שם תהא דירתו. שם תהא מיתתו. שם תהא קבורתו. כשם שהעיר קולטת. כך תחומה קולט. רוצח שיצא חוץ לתחום. ומצאו גואל הדם. רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר מצוה ביד גואל הדם. ורשות ביד כל אדם. רבי עקיבא אומר רשות ביד גואל הדם. וכל אדם אין חייבין עליו. אילן שהוא עומד בתוך התחום. ונופו נוטה חוץ לתחום. או עומד חוץ לתחום. ונופו נוטה לתוך התחום. הכל הולך אחר הנוף. הרג באותה העיר גולה משכונה לשכונה. ובן לוי גולה מעיר לעיר: ",
+ "כיוצא בו רוצח שגלה לעיר מקלטו ורצו אנשי העיר לכבדו. יאמר להם רוצח אני. אמרו לו אף על פי כן. יקבל מהן. שנאמר (דברים יט, ד) וזה דבר הרוצח. מעלים היו שכר ללוים. דברי רבי יהודה. רבי מאיר אומר לא היו מעלים להן שכר. וחוזר לשררה שהיה בה. דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר לא היה חוזר לשררה שהיה בה: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "ואלו הן הלוקין. הבא על אחותו. ועל אחות אביו. ועל אחות אמו. ועל אחות אשתו. ועל אשת אחיו. ועל אשת אחי אביו. ועל הנדה. אלמנה לכהן גדול. גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט. ממזרת ונתינה לישראל. בת ישראל לנתין ולממזר. אלמנה וגרושה. חייבין עליה משום שני שמות. גרושה וחלוצה. אינו חייב אלא משם אחד בלבד: ",
+ "הטמא שאכל את הקדש. והבא אל המקדש טמא. והאוכל חלב. ודם. ונותר. ופגול. וטמא. השוחט. והמעלה בחוץ. והאוכל חמץ בפסח. והאוכל והעושה מלאכה ביום הכפורים. והמפטם את השמן. והמפטם את הקטורת. והסך בשמן המשחה. והאוכל נבלות. וטרפות. שקצים. ורמשים. אכל טבל. ומעשר ראשון שלא נטלה תרומתו. ומעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו. כמה יאכל מן הטבל ויהא חייב. רבי שמעון אומר כל שהוא. וחכמים אומרים כזית. אמר להם ר' שמעון אין אתם מודים לי באוכל נמלה כל שהוא חייב אמרו לו מפני שהיא כברייתה. אמר להן אף חטה אחת כברייתה: ",
+ "האוכל בכורים עד שלא קרא עליהן. קדשי קדשים חוץ לקלעים. קדשים קלים ומעשר שני חוץ לחומה. השובר את העצם בפסח הטהור הרי זה לוקה ארבעים. אבל המותיר בטהור. והשובר בטמא אינו לוקה ארבעים: ",
+ "הנוטל אם על הבנים. רבי יהודה אומר לוקה ואינו משלח. וחכמים אומרים משלח ואינו לוקה. זה הכלל כל מצות לא תעשה שיש בה קום עשה. אין חייבין עליה: ",
+ "הקורח קרחה בראשו. והמקיף פאת ראשו והמשחית פאת זקנו. והשורט שריטה אחת על המת חייב. שרט שריטה אחת על חמשה מתים. או חמש שריטות על מת אחד. חייב על כל אחת ואחת. על הראש שתים. אחת מכאן. ואחת מכאן. ועל הזקן שתים מכאן. ושתים מכאן. ואחת מלמטה. רבי אליעזר אומר אם נטלו כולו כאחת. אינו חייב אלא אחת. ואינו חייב עד שיטלנו בתער. ר' אליעזר אומר אפילו לקטו במלקט. או ברהיטני. חייב: ",
+ "הכותב כתובת קעקע. כתב ולא קעקע. קעקע ולא כתב. אינו חייב. עד שיכתוב ויקעקע. בדיו. ובכחול. ובכל דבר שהוא רושם. רבי שמעון בן יהודה משום רבי שמעון אומר אינו חייב עד שיכתוב שם השם שנאמר (ויקרא יט, כח) וכתובת קעקע לא תתנו בכם אני ה': ",
+ "נזיר שהיה שותה ביין כל היום. אין חייב אלא אחת. אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה. והוא שותה. חייב על כל אחת ואחת: ",
+ "היה מטמא למתים כל היום. אינו חייב אלא אחת. אמרו לו אל תטמא. אל תטמא. והיה מטמא. חייב על כל אחת ואחת. היה מגלח כל היום. אינו חייב אלא אחת. אמרו לו אל תגלח אל תגלח. והוא מגלח. חייב על כל אחת ואחת. היה לבוש בכלאים כל היום. אינו חייב אלא אחת. אמרו לו אל תלבש. אל תלבש. והוא פושט ולובש. חייב על כל אחת ואחת: ",
+ "יש חורש תלם אחד. וחייב עליו משום שמונה לאוין. החורש בשור וחמור. והן מוקדשים. בכלאים בכרם ובשביעית. ויום טוב וכהן ונזיר בבית הטומאה. חנניא בן חכינאי אומר אף הלובש כלאים. אמרו לו אינו השם. אמר להם אף לא הנזיר הוא השם: ",
+ "כמה מלקין אותו ארבעים חסר אחת. שנאמר (דברים כה, ג) במספר ארבעים מנין שהוא סמוך לארבעים. רבי יהודה אומר ארבעים שלמות הוא לוקה. והיכן הוא לוקה את היתירה בין כתפיו: ",
+ "אין אומדין אותו אלא במכות הראויות להשתלש. אמדוהו לקבל ארבעים. לקה מקצת. ואמרו שאין יכול לקבל ארבעים פטור. אמדוהו לקבל שמנה עשרה. משלקה אמרו שיכול הוא לקבל ארבעים. פטור. עבר עבירה שיש בה שני לאוין. אמדוהו אומד אחד. לוקה. ופטור. ואם לאו לוקה ומתרפא וחוזר ולוקה: ",
+ "כיצד מלקין אותו. כופת שתי ידיו על העמוד. הילך והילך. וחזן הכנסת אוחז בבגדיו. אם נקרעו נקרעו. ואם נפרמו נפרמו. עד שהוא מגלה את לבו. והאבן נתון מאחריו. חזן הכנסת עומד עליו. ורצועה של עגל בידו כפולה אחד לשנים. ושנים לארבעה. ושני רצועות עולות ויורדות בה: ",
+ "ידה טפח. ורחבה טפח. וראשה מגעת על פי כרסו ומכה אותו שליש מלפניו. ושתי ידות מלאחריו. ואינו מכה אותו לא עומד ולא יושב. אלא מוטה. שנאמר (דברים כה, ב) והפילו השופט. והמכה מכה בידו אחת בכל כחו: ",
+ "והקורא קורא. אם לא תשמור לעשות וגומר (דברים כח, נט) והפלה ה' את מכותך ואת מכות וגומר וחוזר לתחלת המקרא ושמרתם את דברי הברית הזאת וגומר. וחותם (תהלים עח, לח) והוא רחום יכפר עון וגומר. וחוזר לתחלת המקרא. ואם מת תחת ידו פטור. הוסיף לו עוד רצועה אחת ומת הרי זה גולה על ידו. נתקלקל בין בריעי. בין במים פטור. רבי יהודה אומר האיש בריעי. והאשה במים: ",
+ "כל חייבי כריתות שלקו. נפטרו ידי כריתתם. שנאמר (דברים כה, ג) ונקלה אחיך לעיניך. כשלקה הרי הוא כאחיך. דברי ר' חנניא בן גמליאל. אמר ר' חנניא בן גמליאל מה אם העובר עבירה אחת נוטל נפשו עליה. העושה מצוה אחת. על אחת כמה וכמה שתינתן לו נפשו. ר' שמעון אומר ממקומו הוא למד. שנאמר (ויקרא יח, כט) ונכרתו הנפשות העושות וגומר. ואומר אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם. הא כל היושב ולא עבר עבירה נותנין לו שכר כעושה מצוה. רבי שמעון בר רבי אומר הרי הוא אומר (דברים יב, כג) רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש וגומר. ומה אם הדם שנפשו של אדם קצה ממנו הפורש ממנו מקבל שכר. גזל ועריות שנפשו של אדם מתאוה להן ומחמדתן הפורש מהן על אחת כמה וכמה שיזכה לו ולדורותיו ולדורות דורותיו עד סוף כל הדורות: ",
+ "רבי חנניה בן עקשיא אומר רצה הקדוש ברוך הוא לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות. שנאמר (ישעיה מב, כא) ה' חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר: "
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/Hebrew/Torat Emet 357.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/Hebrew/Torat Emet 357.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bab673dfe8bd2bb44a6586c498a6b67b4a4dfd64
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/Hebrew/Torat Emet 357.json
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+{
+ "language": "he",
+ "title": "Mishnah Makkot",
+ "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads",
+ "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 357",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 3.0,
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 357",
+ "actualLanguage": "he",
+ "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+ "isBaseText": true,
+ "isSource": true,
+ "isPrimary": true,
+ "direction": "rtl",
+ "heTitle": "משנה מכות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "כֵּיצַד הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂים זוֹמְמִין, מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה, אֵין אוֹמְרִים יֵעָשֶׂה זֶה בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה תַחְתָּיו, אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לִגְלוֹת, אֵין אוֹמְרִים יִגְלֶה זֶה תַחְתָּיו, אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁגֵּרַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, וַהֲלֹא בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין לְמָחָר סוֹפוֹ לִתֵּן לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ, שֶׁאִם נִתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה, וְאִם מֵתָה יִירָשֶׁנָּה בַעְלָהּ. מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ אֶלֶף זוּז עַל מְנָת לִתְּנָן לוֹ מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר מִכָּאן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים, אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן וְיִהְיוּ בְיָדוֹ אֶלֶף זוּז, בֵּין נוֹתְנָן מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, בֵּין נוֹתְנָן מִכָּאן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים: \n",
+ "מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁחַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, לוֹקִין וּמְשַׁלְּמִין, שֶׁלֹּא הַשֵּׁם הַמְבִיאוֹ לִידֵי מַכּוֹת, מְבִיאוֹ לִידֵי תַשְׁלוּמִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, כָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n",
+ "מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב מַלְקוּת אַרְבָּעִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, לוֹקִין שְׁמֹנִים, מִשּׁוּם לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר (שמות כ), וּמִשּׁוּם וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם (דברים יט), דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינָן לוֹקִין אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים. מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בְּמָמוֹן וְאֵין מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בְּמַכּוֹת. כֵּיצַד, הֱעִידוּהוּ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בֵּינֵיהֶם. אֲבָל אִם הֱעִידוּהוּ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב מַלְקוּת אַרְבָּעִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים: \n",
+ "אֵין הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂים זוֹמְמִין עַד שֶׁיָּזוֹמוּ אֶת עַצְמָן. כֵּיצַד, אָמְרוּ מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, אָמְרוּ לָהֶן הֵיאַךְ אַתֶּם מְעִידִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶהֱרָג זֶה אוֹ הַהוֹרֵג הָיָה עִמָּנוּ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, אֵין אֵלּוּ זוֹמְמִין. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ לָהֶם הֵיאַךְ אַתֶּם מְעִידִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי אַתֶּם הֱיִיתֶם עִמָּנוּ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ זוֹמְמִין, וְנֶהֱרָגִין עַל פִּיהֶם: \n",
+ "בָּאוּ אֲחֵרִים וְהִזִּימוּם, בָּאוּ אֲחֵרִים וְהִזִּימוּם, אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, כֻּלָּם יֵהָרֵגוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִסְטָסִית הִיא זוֹ, וְאֵינָהּ נֶהֱרֶגֶת אֶלָּא כַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בִלְבָד: \n",
+ "אֵין הָעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין נֶהֱרָגִין, עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַצְּדוֹקִין אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיֵּהָרֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (דברים יט) וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו, וַהֲרֵי אָחִיו קַיָּם. וְאִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ, יָכוֹל מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ עֵדוּתָן יֵהָרֵגוּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ, הָא אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין: \n",
+ "עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת (שם יז), אִם מִתְקַיֶּמֶת הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁנַיִם, לָמָּה פָרַט הַכָּתוּב בִּשְׁלשָׁה, אֶלָּא לְהַקִּישׁ שְׁלשָׁה לִשְׁנַיִם, מַה שְּׁלשָׁה מַזִּימִין אֶת הַשְּׁנַיִם, אַף הַשְּׁנַיִם יָזוֹמּוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁלשָׁה. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מַה שְּׁנַיִם אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם זוֹמְמִין, אַף שְׁלשָׁה אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן זוֹמְמִין. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, לֹא בָא הַשְּׁלִישִׁי אֶלָּא לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו וְלַעֲשׂוֹת דִּינוֹ כַיּוֹצֵא בָאֵלּוּ. וְאִם כֵּן עָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה כְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה יְשַׁלֵּם שָׂכָר לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה כְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה: \n",
+ "מַה שְּׁנַיִם נִמְצָא אַחַד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, אַף שְׁלשָׁה נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. מִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. אֲבָל בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, תִּתְקַיֵּם הָעֵדוּת בַּשְּׁאָר. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִתְרוּ בָהֶן, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בָהֶן, מַה יַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁרָאוּ בְאֶחָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנָּפֶשׁ: \n",
+ "הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וְאֶחָד מַתְרֶה בוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן רוֹאִין אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עֵדוּת אַחַת. וְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵדֻיּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצֵאת אַחַת מֵהֶן זוֹמֶמֶת, הוּא וָהֵן נֶהֱרָגִין וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדָיו מַתְרִין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא סַנְהֶדְרִין שׁוֹמַעַת מִפִּי הַתֻּרְגְּמָן: \n",
+ "מִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ וּבָרַח וּבָא לִפְנֵי אוֹתוֹ בֵית דִּין, אֵין סוֹתְרִים אֶת דִּינוֹ. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ, מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו, הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג. סַנְהֶדְרִין נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. סַנְהֶדְרִין הַהוֹרֶגֶת אֶחָד בְּשָׁבוּעַ נִקְרֵאת חָבְלָנִית. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמְרִים, אִלּוּ הָיִינוּ בַסַּנְהֶדְרִין לֹא נֶהֱרַג אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף הֵן מַרְבִּין שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַגּוֹלִין, הַהוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה. הָיָה מְעַגֵּל בְּמַעְגִּילָה וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ, הָיָה מְשַׁלְשֵׁל בְּחָבִית וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ, הָיָה יוֹרֵד בְּסֻלָּם וְנָפַל עָלָיו וַהֲרָגוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה גוֹלֶה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מוֹשֵׁךְ בְּמַעְגִּילָה וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ, הָיָה דוֹלֶה בְחָבִית וְנִפְסַק הַחֶבֶל וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ, הָיָה עוֹלֶה בְסֻלָּם וְנָפַל עָלָיו וַהֲרָגוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁבְּדֶרֶךְ יְרִידָתוֹ, גּוֹלֶה. וְשֶׁלֹּא בְדֶרֶךְ יְרִידָתוֹ, אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. נִשְׁמַט הַבַּרְזֶל מִקַּתּוֹ וְהָרַג, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, גּוֹלֶה. מִן הָעֵץ הַמִּתְבַּקֵּעַ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, גּוֹלֶה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה: \n",
+ "הַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהָרַג, הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹלֶה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, אִם מִכְּשֶׁיָּצְאתָה הָאֶבֶן מִיָּדוֹ הוֹצִיא הַלָּז אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְקִבְּלָהּ, הֲרֵי זֶה פָטוּר. זָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן לַחֲצֵרוֹ וְהָרַג, אִם יֵשׁ רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק לִכָּנֵס לְשָׁם, גּוֹלֶה. וְאִם לָאו, אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יט) וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בַיַּעַר, מַה הַיַּעַר רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק וְלַמַּזִּיק לִכָּנֵס לְשָׁם, יָצָא חֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵין רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק וְלַמַּזִּיק לִכָּנֵס לְשָׁם. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, מַה חֲטָבַת עֵצִים רְשׁוּת, יָצָא הָאָב הַמַּכֶּה אֶת בְּנוֹ, וְהָרַב הָרוֹדֶה אֶת תַּלְמִידוֹ, וּשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין: \n",
+ "הָאָב גּוֹלֶה עַל יְדֵי הַבֵּן, וְהַבֵּן גּוֹלֶה עַל יְדֵי הָאָב. הַכֹּל גּוֹלִין עַל יְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל גּוֹלִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן, חוּץ מֵעַל יְדֵי גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. וְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. הַסּוּמָא אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, גּוֹלֶה. הַשּׂוֹנֵא אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הַשּׂוֹנֵא נֶהֱרָג, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמוּעָד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, יֵשׁ שׂוֹנֵא גוֹלֶה וְיֵשׁ שׂוֹנֵא שֶׁאֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לְדַעַת הָרַג, אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. וְשֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת הָרַג, הֲרֵי זֶה גוֹלֶה: \n",
+ "לְהֵיכָן גּוֹלִין, לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט. לַשָּׁלשׁ שֶׁבְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וְלַשָּׁלשׁ שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לה) אֵת שְׁלשׁ הֶעָרִים תִּתְּנוּ מֵעֵבֶר לַיַּרְדֵּן וְאֵת שְׁלשׁ הֶעָרִים תִּתְּנוּ בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְגוֹ'. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִבְחֲרוּ שָׁלשׁ שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא הָיוּ שָׁלשׁ שֶׁבְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן קוֹלְטוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) שֵׁשׁ עָרֵי מִקְלָט תִּהְיֶינָה, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שֶׁשְׁתָּן קוֹלְטוֹת כְּאֶחָד: \n",
+ "וּמְכֻוָּנוֹת לָהֶן דְּרָכִים מִזּוֹ לָזוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יט) תָּכִין לְךָ הַדֶּרֶךְ וְשִׁלַּשְׁתָּ וְגוֹ'. וּמוֹסְרִין לָהֶן שְׁנֵי תַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמָּא יַהַרְגֶנּוּ בַדֶּרֶךְ, וִידַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אַף הוּא מְדַבֵּר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וְזֶה דְּבַר הָרֹצֵחַ: \n",
+ "רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּתְּחִלָּה, אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד מַקְדִּימִין לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט, וּבֵית דִּין שׁוֹלְחִין וּמְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִשָּׁם. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב מִיתָה בְּבֵית דִּין, הֲרָגוּהוּ. וְשֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיֵּב מִיתָה, פְּטָרוּהוּ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב גָּלוּת, מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לה) וְהֵשִׁיבוּ אֹתוֹ הָעֵדָה אֶל עִיר מִקְלָטוֹ וְגוֹ'. אֶחָד מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְאֶחָד הַמְרֻבֶּה בִבְגָדִים וְאֶחָד שֶׁעָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחָתוֹ, מַחֲזִירִין אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה מַחֲזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ. לְפִיכָךְ אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים מְסַפְּקוֹת לָהֶן מִחְיָה וּכְסוּת, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפַּלְּלוּ עַל בְּנֵיהֶם שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ. מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ מֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ מֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמִנּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, וּלְאַחַר מִכֵּן נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ, חוֹזֵר בְּמִיתָתוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁנִי: \n",
+ "נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְלֹא כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, הַהוֹרֵג כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהָרַג, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם. וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא לֹא לְעֵדוּת מִצְוָה וְלֹא לְעֵדוּת מָמוֹן וְלֹא לְעֵדוּת נְפָשׁוֹת. וַאֲפִלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל צְרִיכִים לוֹ, וַאֲפִלּוּ שַׂר צְבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּיוֹאָב בֶּן צְרוּיָה, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לה) אֲשֶׁר נָס שָׁמָּה, שָׁם תְּהֵא דִירָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא מִיתָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא קְבוּרָתוֹ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָעִיר קוֹלֶטֶת, כָּךְ תְּחוּמָהּ קוֹלֵט. רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וּמְצָאוֹ גוֹאֵל הַדָּם, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, מִצְוָה בְיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם, וּרְשׁוּת בְּיַד כָּל אָדָם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, רְשׁוּת בְּיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם, וְכָל אָדָם אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו. אִילָן שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם וְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, אוֹ עוֹמֵד חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה לְתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם, הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַנּוֹף. הָרַג בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, גּוֹלֶה מִשְּׁכוּנָה לִשְׁכוּנָה. וּבֶן לֵוִי, גוֹלֶה מֵעִיר לְעִיר: \n",
+ "כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ, רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁגָּלָה לְעִיר מִקְלָטוֹ וְרָצוּ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר לְכַבְּדוֹ, יֹאמַר לָהֶם רוֹצֵחַ אָנִי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי כֵן, יְקַבֵּל מֵהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יט) וְזֶה דְּבַר הָרֹצֵחַ. מַעֲלִים הָיוּ שָׂכָר לַלְוִיִּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיוּ מַעֲלִים לָהֶן שָׂכָר. וְחוֹזֵר לַשְּׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיָה חוֹזֵר לַשְּׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָהּ: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַלּוֹקִין, הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה, אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר. אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה, חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד בִּלְבָד: \n",
+ "הַטָּמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְהַבָּא אֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ טָמֵא, וְהָאוֹכֵל חֵלֶב, וְדָם, וְנוֹתָר, וּפִגּוּל, וְטָמֵא, הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמַּעֲלֶה בַחוּץ, וְהָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח, וְהָאוֹכֵל וְהָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, וְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת, וְהַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, וְהָאוֹכֵל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים. אָכַל טֶבֶל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. כַּמָּה יֹאכַל מִן הַטֶּבֶל וִיהֵא חַיָּב, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים כַּזַּיִת. אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֵין אַתֶּם מוֹדִים לִי בְּאוֹכֵל נְמָלָה כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כִבְרִיָּתָהּ. אָמַר לָהֶן, אַף חִטָּה אַחַת כִּבְרִיָּתָהּ: \n",
+ "הָאוֹכֵל בִּכּוּרִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרָא עֲלֵיהֶן, קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי חוּץ לַחוֹמָה, הַשּׁוֹבֵר אֶת הַעֶצֶם בַּפֶּסַח הַטָּהוֹר, הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. אֲבָל הַמּוֹתִיר בַּטָּהוֹר וְהַשּׁוֹבֵר בַּטָּמֵא, אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים: \n",
+ "הַנּוֹטֵל אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּחַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מְשַׁלֵּחַ וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ קוּם עֲשֵׂה, אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ: \n",
+ "הַקּוֹרֵחַ קָרְחָה בְרֹאשׁוֹ, וְהַמַּקִּיף פְּאַת רֹאשׁוֹ, וְהַמַּשְׁחִית פְּאַת זְקָנוֹ, וְהַשּׂוֹרֵט שְׂרִיטָה אַחַת עַל הַמֵּת, חַיָּב. שָׂרַט שְׂרִיטָה אַחַת עַל חֲמִשָּׁה מֵתִים אוֹ חָמֵשׁ שְׂרִיטוֹת עַל מֵת אֶחָד, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. עַל הָרֹאשׁ, שְׁתַּיִם, אַחַת מִכָּאן וְאַחַת מִכָּאן. עַל הַזָּקָן, שְׁתַּיִם מִכָּאן וּשְׁתַּיִם מִכָּאן וְאַחַת מִלְּמָטָּה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אִם נְטָלוֹ כֻלּוֹ כְאַחַת, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּטְּלֶנּוּ בְתָעַר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ לִקְּטוֹ בְמַלְקֵט אוֹ בִרְהִיטְנִי, חַיָּב: \n",
+ "הַכּוֹתֵב כְּתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע, כָּתַב וְלֹא קִעֲקַע, קִעֲקַע וְלֹא כָתַב, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב וִיקַעֲקֵעַ בִּדְיוֹ וּבִכְחֹל וּבְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רוֹשֵׁם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב שָׁם הַשֵּׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט) וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע לֹא תִתְּנוּ בָּכֶם אֲנִי ה': \n",
+ "נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה שׁוֹתֶה בַיַּיִן כָּל הַיּוֹם, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה וְהוּא שׁוֹתֶה, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת: \n",
+ "הָיָה מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים כָּל הַיּוֹם, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַל תִּטַּמֵּא, אַל תִּטַּמֵּא, וְהָיָה מִטַּמֵּא, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. הָיָה מְגַלֵּחַ כָּל הַיּוֹם, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַל תְּגַלֵּחַ אַל תְּגַלֵּחַ וְהוּא מְגַלֵּחַ, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. הָיָה לָבוּשׁ בְּכִלְאַיִם כָּל הַיּוֹם, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַל תִּלְבָּשׁ אַל תִּלְבָּשׁ וְהוּא פוֹשֵׁט וְלוֹבֵשׁ, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת: \n",
+ "יֵשׁ חוֹרֵשׁ תֶּלֶם אֶחָד וְחַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שְׁמֹנָה לָאוִין, הַחוֹרֵשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר, וְהֵן מֻקְדָּשִׁים, בְּכִלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם, וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית, וְיוֹם טוֹב, וְכֹהֵן וְנָזִיר בְּבֵית הַטֻּמְאָה. חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן חֲכִינַאי אוֹמֵר, אַף הַלּוֹבֵשׁ כִּלְאָיִם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם. אָמַר לָהֶם, אַף לֹא הַנָּזִיר הוּא הַשֵּׁם: \n",
+ "כַּמָּה מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ, אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה) בְּמִסְפָּר אַרְבָּעִים, מִנְיָן שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לְאַרְבָּעִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַרְבָּעִים שְׁלֵמוֹת הוּא לוֹקֶה. וְהֵיכָן הוּא לוֹקֶה אֶת הַיְתֵרָה, בֵּין כְּתֵפָיו: \n",
+ "אֵין אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בְמַכּוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת לְהִשְׁתַּלֵּשׁ. אֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים, לָקָה מִקְצָת וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים, פָּטוּר. אֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, מִשֶּׁלָּקָה אָמְרוּ שֶׁיָּכוֹל הוּא לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים, פָּטוּר. עָבַר עֲבֵרָה שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁנֵי לָאוִין, אֲמָדוּהוּ אֹמֶד אֶחָד, לוֹקֶה וּפָטוּר. וְאִם לָאו, לוֹקֶה וּמִתְרַפֵּא וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקֶה: \n",
+ "כֵּיצַד מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ, כּוֹפֵת שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עַל הָעַמּוּד הֵילָךְ וְהֵילָךְ, וְחַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדָיו, אִם נִקְרְעוּ נִקְרָעוּ, וְאִם נִפְרְמוּ נִפְרָמוּ, עַד שֶׁהוּא מְגַלֶּה אֶת לִבּוֹ. וְהָאֶבֶן נְתוּנָה מֵאַחֲרָיו, חַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת עוֹמֵד עָלֶיהָ. וּרְצוּעָה שֶׁל עֵגֶל בְּיָדוֹ, כְּפוּלָה אֶחָד לִשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁנַיִם לְאַרְבָּעָה, וּשְׁתֵּי רְצוּעוֹת עוֹלוֹת וְיוֹרְדוֹת בָּהּ: \n",
+ "יָדָהּ טֶפַח וְרָחְבָּהּ טֶפַח, וְרֹאשָׁהּ מַגַּעַת עַל פִּי כְרֵסוֹ. וּמַכֶּה אוֹתוֹ שְׁלִישׁ מִלְּפָנָיו וּשְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת מִלְּאַחֲרָיו. וְאֵינוֹ מַכֶּה אוֹתוֹ לֹא עוֹמֵד וְלֹא יוֹשֵׁב אֶלָּא מֻטֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה) וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשֹּׁפֵט. וְהַמַּכֶּה מַכֶּה בְיָדוֹ אַחַת בְּכָל כֹּחוֹ: \n",
+ "וְהַקּוֹרֵא קוֹרֵא (שם כח) אִם לֹא תִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת וְגוֹ' וְהִפְלָא ה' אֶת מַכֹּתְךָ וְאֵת מַכּוֹת וְגוֹ', וְחוֹזֵר לִתְחִלַּת הַמִּקְרָא (שם כט) וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַבְּרִית הַזֹּאת וְגוֹ', וְחוֹתֵם (תהלים עח) וְהוּא רַחוּם יְכַפֵּר עָוֹן וְגוֹ', וְחוֹזֵר לִתְחִלַּת הַמִּקְרָא. וְאִם מֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ, פָּטוּר. הוֹסִיף לוֹ עוֹד רְצוּעָה אַחַת וָמֵת, הֲרֵי זֶה גוֹלֶה עַל יָדוֹ. נִתְקַלְקֵל בֵּין בְּרֶעִי בֵּין בְּמַיִם, פָּטוּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הָאִישׁ בְּרֶעִי וְהָאִשָּׁה בְּמָיִם: \n",
+ "כָּל חַיָּבֵי כְרֵתוֹת שֶׁלָּקוּ, נִפְטְרוּ יְדֵי כְרֵתָתָן, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר (דברים כה) וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ, כְּשֶׁלָּקָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְאָחִיךָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מָה אִם הָעוֹבֵר עֲבֵרָה אַחַת, נוֹטֵל נַפְשׁוֹ עָלֶיהָ, הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁתִּנָּתֵן לוֹ נַפְשׁוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מִמְּקוֹמוֹ הוּא לָמֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח) וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשֹׂת וְגוֹ', וְאוֹמֵר (שם) אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם. הָא, כָּל הַיּוֹשֵׁב וְלֹא עָבַר עֲבֵרָה, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שָׂכָר כְּעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים יב) רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ וְגוֹ', וּמָה אִם הַדָּם שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קָצָה מִמֶּנּוּ, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ מְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר, גָּזֵל וַעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מִתְאַוָּה לָהֶן וּמְחַמַּדְתָּן, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵהֶן עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לוֹ וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו וּלְדוֹרוֹת דּוֹרוֹתָיו עַד סוֹף כָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת: \n",
+ "רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַשְׁיָא אוֹמֵר, רָצָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְזַכּוֹת אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְפִיכָךְ הִרְבָּה לָהֶם תּוֹרָה וּמִצְוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה מב) יְיָ חָפֵץ לְמַעַן צִדְקוֹ יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר: \n"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/Hebrew/merged.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e58165165f0b625122ab88612e6cb694900e32f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/Hebrew/merged.json
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+{
+ "title": "Mishnah Makkot",
+ "language": "he",
+ "versionTitle": "merged",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Makkot",
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "כֵּיצַד הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂים זוֹמְמִין, מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה, אֵין אוֹמְרִים יֵעָשֶׂה זֶה בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה תַחְתָּיו, אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לִגְלוֹת, אֵין אוֹמְרִים יִגְלֶה זֶה תַחְתָּיו, אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁגֵּרַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, וַהֲלֹא בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין לְמָחָר סוֹפוֹ לִתֵּן לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ, שֶׁאִם נִתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה, וְאִם מֵתָה יִירָשֶׁנָּה בַעְלָהּ. מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ אֶלֶף זוּז עַל מְנָת לִתְּנָן לוֹ מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר מִכָּאן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים, אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן וְיִהְיוּ בְיָדוֹ אֶלֶף זוּז, בֵּין נוֹתְנָן מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, בֵּין נוֹתְנָן מִכָּאן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים: \n",
+ "מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁחַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, לוֹקִין וּמְשַׁלְּמִין, שֶׁלֹּא הַשֵּׁם הַמְבִיאוֹ לִידֵי מַכּוֹת, מְבִיאוֹ לִידֵי תַשְׁלוּמִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, כָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה: \n",
+ "מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב מַלְקוּת אַרְבָּעִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, לוֹקִין שְׁמֹנִים, מִשּׁוּם לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר (שמות כ), וּמִשּׁוּם וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם (דברים יט), דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינָן לוֹקִין אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים. מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בְּמָמוֹן וְאֵין מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בְּמַכּוֹת. כֵּיצַד, הֱעִידוּהוּ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בֵּינֵיהֶם. אֲבָל אִם הֱעִידוּהוּ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב מַלְקוּת אַרְבָּעִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים: \n",
+ "אֵין הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂים זוֹמְמִין עַד שֶׁיָּזוֹמוּ אֶת עַצְמָן. כֵּיצַד, אָמְרוּ מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, אָמְרוּ לָהֶן הֵיאַךְ אַתֶּם מְעִידִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶהֱרָג זֶה אוֹ הַהוֹרֵג הָיָה עִמָּנוּ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, אֵין אֵלּוּ זוֹמְמִין. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ לָהֶם הֵיאַךְ אַתֶּם מְעִידִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי אַתֶּם הֱיִיתֶם עִמָּנוּ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ זוֹמְמִין, וְנֶהֱרָגִין עַל פִּיהֶם: \n",
+ "בָּאוּ אֲחֵרִים וְהִזִּימוּם, בָּאוּ אֲחֵרִים וְהִזִּימוּם, אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, כֻּלָּם יֵהָרֵגוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִסְטָסִית הִיא זוֹ, וְאֵינָהּ נֶהֱרֶגֶת אֶלָּא כַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בִלְבָד: \n",
+ "אֵין הָעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין נֶהֱרָגִין, עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַצְּדוֹקִין אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיֵּהָרֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (דברים יט) וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו, וַהֲרֵי אָחִיו קַיָּם. וְאִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ, יָכוֹל מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ עֵדוּתָן יֵהָרֵגוּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ, הָא אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין: \n",
+ "עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת (שם יז), אִם מִתְקַיֶּמֶת הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁנַיִם, לָמָּה פָרַט הַכָּתוּב בִּשְׁלשָׁה, אֶלָּא לְהַקִּישׁ שְׁלשָׁה לִשְׁנַיִם, מַה שְּׁלשָׁה מַזִּימִין אֶת הַשְּׁנַיִם, אַף הַשְּׁנַיִם יָזוֹמּוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁלשָׁה. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מַה שְּׁנַיִם אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם זוֹמְמִין, אַף שְׁלשָׁה אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן זוֹמְמִין. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, לֹא בָא הַשְּׁלִישִׁי אֶלָּא לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו וְלַעֲשׂוֹת דִּינוֹ כַיּוֹצֵא בָאֵלּוּ. וְאִם כֵּן עָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה כְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה יְשַׁלֵּם שָׂכָר לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה כְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה: \n",
+ "מַה שְּׁנַיִם נִמְצָא אַחַד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, אַף שְׁלשָׁה נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. מִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. אֲבָל בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, תִּתְקַיֵּם הָעֵדוּת בַּשְּׁאָר. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִתְרוּ בָהֶן, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בָהֶן, מַה יַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁרָאוּ בְאֶחָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנָּפֶשׁ: \n",
+ "הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וְאֶחָד מַתְרֶה בוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן רוֹאִין אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עֵדוּת אַחַת. וְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵדֻיּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצֵאת אַחַת מֵהֶן זוֹמֶמֶת, הוּא וָהֵן נֶהֱרָגִין וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדָיו מַתְרִין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא סַנְהֶדְרִין שׁוֹמַעַת מִפִּי הַתֻּרְגְּמָן: \n",
+ "מִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ וּבָרַח וּבָא לִפְנֵי אוֹתוֹ בֵית דִּין, אֵין סוֹתְרִים אֶת דִּינוֹ. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ, מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו, הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג. סַנְהֶדְרִין נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. סַנְהֶדְרִין הַהוֹרֶגֶת אֶחָד בְּשָׁבוּעַ נִקְרֵאת חָבְלָנִית. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמְרִים, אִלּוּ הָיִינוּ בַסַּנְהֶדְרִין לֹא נֶהֱרַג אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף הֵן מַרְבִּין שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַגּוֹלִין, הַהוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה. הָיָה מְעַגֵּל בְּמַעְגִּילָה וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ, הָיָה מְשַׁלְשֵׁל בְּחָבִית וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ, הָיָה יוֹרֵד בְּסֻלָּם וְנָפַל עָלָיו וַהֲרָגוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה גוֹלֶה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מוֹשֵׁךְ בְּמַעְגִּילָה וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ, הָיָה דוֹלֶה בְחָבִית וְנִפְסַק הַחֶבֶל וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ, הָיָה עוֹלֶה בְסֻלָּם וְנָפַל עָלָיו וַהֲרָגוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁבְּדֶרֶךְ יְרִידָתוֹ, גּוֹלֶה. וְשֶׁלֹּא בְדֶרֶךְ יְרִידָתוֹ, אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. נִשְׁמַט הַבַּרְזֶל מִקַּתּוֹ וְהָרַג, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, גּוֹלֶה. מִן הָעֵץ הַמִּתְבַּקֵּעַ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, גּוֹלֶה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה: \n",
+ "הַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהָרַג, הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹלֶה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, אִם מִכְּשֶׁיָּצְאתָה הָאֶבֶן מִיָּדוֹ הוֹצִיא הַלָּז אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְקִבְּלָהּ, הֲרֵי זֶה פָטוּר. זָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן לַחֲצֵרוֹ וְהָרַג, אִם יֵשׁ רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק לִכָּנֵס לְשָׁם, גּוֹלֶה. וְאִם לָאו, אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יט) וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בַיַּעַר, מַה הַיַּעַר רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק וְלַמַּזִּיק לִכָּנֵס לְשָׁם, יָצָא חֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵין רְשׁוּת לַנִּזָּק וְלַמַּזִּיק לִכָּנֵס לְשָׁם. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, מַה חֲטָבַת עֵצִים רְשׁוּת, יָצָא הָאָב הַמַּכֶּה אֶת בְּנוֹ, וְהָרַב הָרוֹדֶה אֶת תַּלְמִידוֹ, וּשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין: \n",
+ "הָאָב גּוֹלֶה עַל יְדֵי הַבֵּן, וְהַבֵּן גּוֹלֶה עַל יְדֵי הָאָב. הַכֹּל גּוֹלִין עַל יְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל גּוֹלִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן, חוּץ מֵעַל יְדֵי גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. וְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. הַסּוּמָא אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, גּוֹלֶה. הַשּׂוֹנֵא אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הַשּׂוֹנֵא נֶהֱרָג, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמוּעָד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, יֵשׁ שׂוֹנֵא גוֹלֶה וְיֵשׁ שׂוֹנֵא שֶׁאֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לְדַעַת הָרַג, אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. וְשֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת הָרַג, הֲרֵי זֶה גוֹלֶה: \n",
+ "לְהֵיכָן גּוֹלִין, לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט. לַשָּׁלשׁ שֶׁבְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וְלַשָּׁלשׁ שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לה) אֵת שְׁלשׁ הֶעָרִים תִּתְּנוּ מֵעֵבֶר לַיַּרְדֵּן וְאֵת שְׁלשׁ הֶעָרִים תִּתְּנוּ בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְגוֹ'. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִבְחֲרוּ שָׁלשׁ שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא הָיוּ שָׁלשׁ שֶׁבְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן קוֹלְטוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) שֵׁשׁ עָרֵי מִקְלָט תִּהְיֶינָה, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שֶׁשְׁתָּן קוֹלְטוֹת כְּאֶחָד: \n",
+ "וּמְכֻוָּנוֹת לָהֶן דְּרָכִים מִזּוֹ לָזוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יט) תָּכִין לְךָ הַדֶּרֶךְ וְשִׁלַּשְׁתָּ וְגוֹ'. וּמוֹסְרִין לָהֶן שְׁנֵי תַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמָּא יַהַרְגֶנּוּ בַדֶּרֶךְ, וִידַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אַף הוּא מְדַבֵּר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וְזֶה דְּבַר הָרֹצֵחַ: \n",
+ "רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּתְּחִלָּה, אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד מַקְדִּימִין לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט, וּבֵית דִּין שׁוֹלְחִין וּמְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִשָּׁם. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב מִיתָה בְּבֵית דִּין, הֲרָגוּהוּ. וְשֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיֵּב מִיתָה, פְּטָרוּהוּ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב גָּלוּת, מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לה) וְהֵשִׁיבוּ אֹתוֹ הָעֵדָה אֶל עִיר מִקְלָטוֹ וְגוֹ'. אֶחָד מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְאֶחָד הַמְרֻבֶּה בִבְגָדִים וְאֶחָד שֶׁעָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחָתוֹ, מַחֲזִירִין אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה מַחֲזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ. לְפִיכָךְ אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים מְסַפְּקוֹת לָהֶן מִחְיָה וּכְסוּת, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפַּלְּלוּ עַל בְּנֵיהֶם שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ. מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ מֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ מֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמִנּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, וּלְאַחַר מִכֵּן נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ, חוֹזֵר בְּמִיתָתוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁנִי: \n",
+ "נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְלֹא כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, הַהוֹרֵג כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהָרַג, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם. וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא לֹא לְעֵדוּת מִצְוָה וְלֹא לְעֵדוּת מָמוֹן וְלֹא לְעֵדוּת נְפָשׁוֹת. וַאֲפִלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל צְרִיכִים לוֹ, וַאֲפִלּוּ שַׂר צְבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּיוֹאָב בֶּן צְרוּיָה, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לה) אֲשֶׁר נָס שָׁמָּה, שָׁם תְּהֵא דִירָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא מִיתָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא קְבוּרָתוֹ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָעִיר קוֹלֶטֶת, כָּךְ תְּחוּמָהּ קוֹלֵט. רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וּמְצָאוֹ גוֹאֵל הַדָּם, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, מִצְוָה בְיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם, וּרְשׁוּת בְּיַד כָּל אָדָם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, רְשׁוּת בְּיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם, וְכָל אָדָם אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו. אִילָן שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם וְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, אוֹ עוֹמֵד חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה לְתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם, הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַנּוֹף. הָרַג בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, גּוֹלֶה מִשְּׁכוּנָה לִשְׁכוּנָה. וּבֶן לֵוִי, גוֹלֶה מֵעִיר לְעִיר: \n",
+ "כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ, רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁגָּלָה לְעִיר מִקְלָטוֹ וְרָצוּ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר לְכַבְּדוֹ, יֹאמַר לָהֶם רוֹצֵחַ אָנִי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי כֵן, יְקַבֵּל מֵהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יט) וְזֶה דְּבַר הָרֹצֵחַ. מַעֲלִים הָיוּ שָׂכָר לַלְוִיִּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיוּ מַעֲלִים לָהֶן שָׂכָר. וְחוֹזֵר לַשְּׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיָה חוֹזֵר לַשְּׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָהּ: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַלּוֹקִין, הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה, אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר. אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה, חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד בִּלְבָד: \n",
+ "הַטָּמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְהַבָּא אֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ טָמֵא, וְהָאוֹכֵל חֵלֶב, וְדָם, וְנוֹתָר, וּפִגּוּל, וְטָמֵא, הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמַּעֲלֶה בַחוּץ, וְהָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח, וְהָאוֹכֵל וְהָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, וְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת, וְהַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, וְהָאוֹכֵל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים. אָכַל טֶבֶל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. כַּמָּה יֹאכַל מִן הַטֶּבֶל וִיהֵא חַיָּב, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים כַּזַּיִת. אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֵין אַתֶּם מוֹדִים לִי בְּאוֹכֵל נְמָלָה כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כִבְרִיָּתָהּ. אָמַר לָהֶן, אַף חִטָּה אַחַת כִּבְרִיָּתָהּ: \n",
+ "הָאוֹכֵל בִּכּוּרִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרָא עֲלֵיהֶן, קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי חוּץ לַחוֹמָה, הַשּׁוֹבֵר אֶת הַעֶצֶם בַּפֶּסַח הַטָּהוֹר, הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. אֲבָל הַמּוֹתִיר בַּטָּהוֹר וְהַשּׁוֹבֵר בַּטָּמֵא, אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים: \n",
+ "הַנּוֹטֵל אֵם עַל הַבָּנִים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּחַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מְשַׁלֵּחַ וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ קוּם עֲשֵׂה, אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ: \n",
+ "הַקּוֹרֵחַ קָרְחָה בְרֹאשׁוֹ, וְהַמַּקִּיף פְּאַת רֹאשׁוֹ, וְהַמַּשְׁחִית פְּאַת זְקָנוֹ, וְהַשּׂוֹרֵט שְׂרִיטָה אַחַת עַל הַמֵּת, חַיָּב. שָׂרַט שְׂרִיטָה אַחַת עַל חֲמִשָּׁה מֵתִים אוֹ חָמֵשׁ שְׂרִיטוֹת עַל מֵת אֶחָד, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. עַל הָרֹאשׁ, שְׁתַּיִם, אַחַת מִכָּאן וְאַחַת מִכָּאן. עַל הַזָּקָן, שְׁתַּיִם מִכָּאן וּשְׁתַּיִם מִכָּאן וְאַחַת מִלְּמָטָּה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אִם נְטָלוֹ כֻלּוֹ כְאַחַת, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּטְּלֶנּוּ בְתָעַר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ לִקְּטוֹ בְמַלְקֵט אוֹ בִרְהִיטְנִי, חַיָּב: \n",
+ "הַכּוֹתֵב כְּתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע, כָּתַב וְלֹא קִעֲקַע, קִעֲקַע וְלֹא כָתַב, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב וִיקַעֲקֵעַ בִּדְיוֹ וּבִכְחֹל וּבְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רוֹשֵׁם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב שָׁם הַשֵּׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט) וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע לֹא תִתְּנוּ בָּכֶם אֲנִי ה': \n",
+ "נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה שׁוֹתֶה בַיַּיִן כָּל הַיּוֹם, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה וְהוּא שׁוֹתֶה, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת: \n",
+ "הָיָה מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים כָּל הַיּוֹם, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַל תִּטַּמֵּא, אַל תִּטַּמֵּא, וְהָיָה מִטַּמֵּא, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. הָיָה מְגַלֵּחַ כָּל הַיּוֹם, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַל תְּגַלֵּחַ אַל תְּגַלֵּחַ וְהוּא מְגַלֵּחַ, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. הָיָה לָבוּשׁ בְּכִלְאַיִם כָּל הַיּוֹם, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַל תִּלְבָּשׁ אַל תִּלְבָּשׁ וְהוּא פוֹשֵׁט וְלוֹבֵשׁ, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת: \n",
+ "יֵשׁ חוֹרֵשׁ תֶּלֶם אֶחָד וְחַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שְׁמֹנָה לָאוִין, הַחוֹרֵשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר, וְהֵן מֻקְדָּשִׁים, בְּכִלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם, וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית, וְיוֹם טוֹב, וְכֹהֵן וְנָזִיר בְּבֵית הַטֻּמְאָה. חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן חֲכִינַאי אוֹמֵר, אַף הַלּוֹבֵשׁ כִּלְאָיִם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם. אָמַר לָהֶם, אַף לֹא הַנָּזִיר הוּא הַשֵּׁם: \n",
+ "כַּמָּה מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ, אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה) בְּמִסְפָּר אַרְבָּעִים, מִנְיָן שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לְאַרְבָּעִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַרְבָּעִים שְׁלֵמוֹת הוּא לוֹקֶה. וְהֵיכָן הוּא לוֹקֶה אֶת הַיְתֵרָה, בֵּין כְּתֵפָיו: \n",
+ "אֵין אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בְמַכּוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת לְהִשְׁתַּלֵּשׁ. אֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים, לָקָה מִקְצָת וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים, פָּטוּר. אֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, מִשֶּׁלָּקָה אָמְרוּ שֶׁיָּכוֹל הוּא לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים, פָּטוּר. עָבַר עֲבֵרָה שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁנֵי לָאוִין, אֲמָדוּהוּ אֹמֶד אֶחָד, לוֹקֶה וּפָטוּר. וְאִם לָאו, לוֹקֶה וּמִתְרַפֵּא וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקֶה: \n",
+ "כֵּיצַד מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ, כּוֹפֵת שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עַל הָעַמּוּד הֵילָךְ וְהֵילָךְ, וְחַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדָיו, אִם נִקְרְעוּ נִקְרָעוּ, וְאִם נִפְרְמוּ נִפְרָמוּ, עַד שֶׁהוּא מְגַלֶּה אֶת לִבּוֹ. וְהָאֶבֶן נְתוּנָה מֵאַחֲרָיו, חַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת עוֹמֵד עָלֶיהָ. וּרְצוּעָה שֶׁל עֵגֶל בְּיָדוֹ, כְּפוּלָה אֶחָד לִשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁנַיִם לְאַרְבָּעָה, וּשְׁתֵּי רְצוּעוֹת עוֹלוֹת וְיוֹרְדוֹת בָּהּ: \n",
+ "יָדָהּ טֶפַח וְרָחְבָּהּ טֶפַח, וְרֹאשָׁהּ מַגַּעַת עַל פִּי כְרֵסוֹ. וּמַכֶּה אוֹתוֹ שְׁלִישׁ מִלְּפָנָיו וּשְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת מִלְּאַחֲרָיו. וְאֵינוֹ מַכֶּה אוֹתוֹ לֹא עוֹמֵד וְלֹא יוֹשֵׁב אֶלָּא מֻטֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה) וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשֹּׁפֵט. וְהַמַּכֶּה מַכֶּה בְיָדוֹ אַחַת בְּכָל כֹּחוֹ: \n",
+ "וְהַקּוֹרֵא קוֹרֵא (שם כח) אִם לֹא תִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת וְגוֹ' וְהִפְלָא ה' אֶת מַכֹּתְךָ וְאֵת מַכּוֹת וְגוֹ', וְחוֹזֵר לִתְחִלַּת הַמִּקְרָא (שם כט) וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַבְּרִית הַזֹּאת וְגוֹ', וְחוֹתֵם (תהלים עח) וְהוּא רַחוּם יְכַפֵּר עָוֹן וְגוֹ', וְחוֹזֵר לִתְחִלַּת הַמִּקְרָא. וְאִם מֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ, פָּטוּר. הוֹסִיף לוֹ עוֹד רְצוּעָה אַחַת וָמֵת, הֲרֵי זֶה גוֹלֶה עַל יָדוֹ. נִתְקַלְקֵל בֵּין בְּרֶעִי בֵּין בְּמַיִם, פָּטוּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הָאִישׁ בְּרֶעִי וְהָאִשָּׁה בְּמָיִם: \n",
+ "כָּל חַיָּבֵי כְרֵתוֹת שֶׁלָּקוּ, נִפְטְרוּ יְדֵי כְרֵתָתָן, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר (דברים כה) וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ, כְּשֶׁלָּקָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְאָחִיךָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מָה אִם הָעוֹבֵר עֲבֵרָה אַחַת, נוֹטֵל נַפְשׁוֹ עָלֶיהָ, הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁתִּנָּתֵן לוֹ נַפְשׁוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מִמְּקוֹמוֹ הוּא לָמֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח) וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשֹׂת וְגוֹ', וְאוֹמֵר (שם) אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם. הָא, כָּל הַיּוֹשֵׁב וְלֹא עָבַר עֲבֵרָה, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שָׂכָר כְּעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים יב) רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ וְגוֹ', וּמָה אִם הַדָּם שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קָצָה מִמֶּנּוּ, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ מְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר, גָּזֵל וַעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מִתְאַוָּה לָהֶן וּמְחַמַּדְתָּן, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵהֶן עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לוֹ וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו וּלְדוֹרוֹת דּוֹרוֹתָיו עַד סוֹף כָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת: \n",
+ "רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַשְׁיָא אוֹמֵר, רָצָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְזַכּוֹת אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְפִיכָךְ הִרְבָּה לָהֶם תּוֹרָה וּמִצְוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה מב) יְיָ חָפֵץ לְמַעַן צִדְקוֹ יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר: \n"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "versions": [
+ [
+ "Torat Emet 357",
+ "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "heTitle": "משנה מכות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Le Talmud de J\303\251rusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr].json" "b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Le Talmud de J\303\251rusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr].json"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df875e1fb08b03989461be8383d021ff92250ff4
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Le Talmud de J\303\251rusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr].json"
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002182155/NLI",
+ "versionTitle": "Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "actualLanguage": "fr",
+ "languageFamilyName": "french",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Un tribunal de trois juges statue sur les procès civils (financiers), ou sur les réclamations relatives à l’enlèvement d’un objet par violence, ou sur les blessures. De même un tribunal de trois juges connaît des demandes en dommages-intérêts, soit dans le cas où la loi accorde une entière indemnité, soit dans ceux où elle n’accorde que le remboursement de la moitié du dommage, comme aussi dans ceux où elle oblige de payer le double, ou le quadruple, ou le quintuple (Ex 21, 37). Les réclamations pour viol, ou pour séduction, et l’accusation d’adultère, sont portées devant un tribunal de trois juges; tel est l’avis de R. Meir. Les autres docteurs disent: pour l’accusation d’adultère, il faut un tribunal de 23 juges, car ces procès peuvent aboutir à une peine capitale.",
+ "Un tribunal de trois juges peut condamner à la peine du fouet; on a dit au nom de R. Ismaël que pour prononcer cette peine, il faut un tribunal de 23 juges. Un tribunal de 3 juges peut décider si le mois (lunaire) doit être augmenté d’un jour. La décision qui ajoute à l’année un mois intercalaire (embolismique) peut également être rendue par 3 juges; tel est l’avis de R. Meir. D’après R. Simon b. Gamliel, la séance peut s’ouvrir par trois juges qui décident s’il y a lieu de discuter; mais la discussion se fait par 5, et la décision est rendue par 7 juges; cependant, si la décision a été prise par 3 juges, l’addition à l’année sera maintenue.",
+ "Il suffit, d’après R. Simon, de trois anciens pour la cérémonie de l’imposition des mains, comme aussi pour les fonctions qu’ils doivent remplir (à l’occasion d’un mort trouvé entre deux villes) de tuer une génisse (Dt 21, 4); mais d’après R. Judah, il faut 5 anciens pour ces cas. Il en faut seulement 3 pour la cérémonie du déchaussement (ib. 25, 9), et le refus d’une fille mineure d’épouser son fiancé. Les fruits des plantes de la 4e année (Lv 19, 24) et ceux de la 2e dîme pouvaient être rachetés par leur valeur en argent; si cette valeur n’était pas bien connue, l’estimation devait se faire par 3 personnes. Il en est de même pour l’estimation de toutes les choses sacrées qu’on voulait racheter. Il en faut aussi 3 pour les estimations nécessitées par suite d’un vœu (ibid. 27), quand il s’agit d’objets mobiliers. R. Juda dit que l’un des trois doit être un cohen. Les terrains sacrés qu’on veut racheter doivent être estimés devant dix personnes, dont une est un cohen. Il en est de même pour l’estimation d’un homme, s’il a fait vœu de donner sa valeur.",
+ "Les causes qui entraînent la peine capitale ne peuvent être jugées que par un tribunal de 23 personnes. Tel est le cas lorsque pour accouplement avec un animal, actif ou passif, il faut les tuer, selon ces mots (Lv 20, 16): Tu tueras la femme et l’animal; puis (ibid. 17): vous tuerez l’animal. De même, il faut 23 juges pour faire lapider un bœuf qui a tué, un homme, selon ces mots (Ex 21, 29): le bœuf sera lapidé, et même son maître mourra; or les mêmes qui condamnent l’animal condamnent aussi le maître coupable (ou 23). Il faut 23 juges pour mettre à mort un loup, ou un lion, un ours, un tigre, une panthère, un serpent. R. Eliézer dit: celui qui le premier (prend les devants) et tue un animal nuisible fait une bonne action; R. aqiba exige quand même à cet effet un tribunal de 23 juges.",
+ "Il faut un tribunal de 71 membres pour juger une tribu entière, ou un faux prophète, ou un grand prêtre. Il faut une telle assemblée pour déclarer la guerre non obligatoire, et il la faut pour augmenter la ville (de Jérusalem), ou les annexes du Temple. Le tribunal de 71 juges a seul le droit d’installer les Sanhédrins de 23 juges, qui doivent siéger dans les villes. Il faut aussi un tribunal de 71 juges pour le procès et la punition de toute une ville, coupable de paganisme (Dt 13). On ne détruit pas du reste cette ville, si elle se trouve située sur la frontière, ni trois villes coupables de paganisme; mais on peut en détruire une ou deux.",
+ "Le grand Sanhedrin était composé de 71 membres, et le petit de 23. On sait le nombre du grand Sanhedrin de ce qu’il est dit (Nb 11, 16): rassemble-moi 70 hommes des anciens d’Israël, soit 71, avec Moïse. D’après R. Juda, il suffit de 70 pour le grand Sanhedrin. Le petit se compose de 23, selon les mots (Nb 35, 24-25): la communauté jugera, etc.; la communauté sauvera, etc.; or, il y a là trace d’une communauté (réunion de 10 personnes) qui juge et d’une autre qui sauve, soit ensemble 20. Quant au nombre de dix personnes représentant le minimum d’une communauté, on le sait de ce qu’il est dit (Ibid. 14, 27): jusqu’à quand tolérerai-je cette communauté perverse, composée des 12 explorateurs, hormis Josué et Kaleb (= 10). De plus, à ce nombre de 20, il faut ajouter 3, car d’après les mots (Ex 23, 2): il ne faut pas se régler selon la majorité si elle entraîne la condamnation, on conclut qu’il faut la suivre s’il s’agit d’absoudre; donc, à quoi bon ajouter: il faut pencher d’après la majorité? Pour établir la distinction suivante: le penchant à absoudre n’est pas le même que celui pour condamner, car le 1er a lieu sur un seul témoignage, et pour le second il faut au moins deux témoins; or, comme en ce dernier cas il n’y aurait pas de voix prépondérante, on a ajouté une 3e voix, soit au total 23. Pour qu’une ville ait le droit d’avoir un Sanhedrin, elle doit avoir 120 habitants; d’après R. Néhémie, elle doit en avoir 230, afin qu’il y ait au moins dix habitants pour un juge."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Le grand prêtre peut juger et être jugé; il peut déposer comme témoin contre les autres, et l’on peut déposer contre lui; si son père est mort sans enfants, la veuve pratique sur lui la cérémonie du déchaussement (Dt 25, 9), mais elle ne peut pas l’épouser, car un grand prêtre ne peut pas épouser une veuve (Lv 21, 14); s’il est mort sans enfants, son frère peut épouser sa veuve, ou se soumettre au déchaussement. S’il perd un proche parent, il ne suit pas le cercueil; lorsque les porteurs ne sont plus en vue, il apparaît, et lorsqu’on les revoit, il ne se montre pas, les suivant ainsi à distance jusqu’à la porte de la ville. Tel est l’avis de R. Meir. R. Juda dit: il ne quittera même pas le Temple, puisqu’il est dit expressément (Lv 21, 12-13): il ne sortira pas du sanctuaire. Lorsqu’il console d’autres, il est d’usage que tout le monde passe au devant de lui, ayant entre lui et tout le peuple le lieutenant placé au milieu. Lorsque d’autres le consolent de son deuil, ils lui disent: “Puissions-nous te servir d’expiation” (terme de dévouement); et il leur répond: “Soyez béni par le ciel”. Lorsqu’on lui apporte le repas de deuil, tout le peuple s’étend à terre, tandis qu’il s’assoit sur une chaise.",
+ "Un roi ne peut pas juger ni être jugé; il ne dépose pas comme témoin, et l’on ne dépose pas contre lui. S’il est mort sans enfant, son frère ne peut pas épouser la veuve et ne se soumet pas au déchaussement. Si son frère est mort sans enfant, il ne peut pas épouser la veuve, ni se soumettre au déchaussement; d’après R. Juda, il peut l’épouser ou se soumettre au déchaussement s’il le veut, et son souvenir sera rappelé en bien. S’il meut, personne ne peut épouser sa veuve; d’après R. Juda, le roi qui lui succède peut épouser sa veuve, car on trouve que David a épousé la veuve de Saül, comme il est dit (1S 2, 5): Je t’ai donné la maison de ton maître et les femmes de ton maître sur ton sein.",
+ "S’il perd un proche parent, il ne quitte pas son palais (palatium); selon R. Juda, il est libre de suivre le cercueil s’il le désire; ainsi, l’on trouve que David à suivi le cercueil d’Abner, comme il est dit (2S, 3, 31): le roi David marcha derrière le cercueil. Ceci ne prouve rien, fut-il répliqué, car le roi agit ainsi pour calmer le peuple. – Lorsqu’on lui apporte le repas de deuil, tout le peuple s’assoit à terre, tandis qu’il s’assoit sur un escabeau.",
+ "Le roi déclare une guerre non obligatoire, et le Sanhedrin de 71 membres y consent. Il peut briser tous les obstacles pour s’ouvrir un chemin et personne ne peut l’empêcher. Le chemin du roi n’a rien de fixe. Les soldats prennent le butin et ils le mettent devant le roi, afin qu’il prenne sa part le premier. Le roi ne peut pas épouser plus de 18 femmes. R. Juda dit qu’il peut en prendre davantage, pourvu que ce ne soient pas des femmes capables de le corrompre. R. Simon au contraire dit qu’il ne doit pas épouser beaucoup de femmes mêmes vertueuses; quant aux femmes mauvaises, il ne doit pas en prendre une seule. Le roi ne doit pas avoir un grand nombre de chevaux (Dt 17, 16); il n’en aura que ce qu’il faut pour son équipage. Il ne doit pas avoir trop d’argent ni trop d’or (ib. 17); il n’en aura que ce qu’il faut pour entretenir les troupes. Il fera faire une copie de la loi s’il part en guerre, il prendra la copie avec lui; s’il revient de la guerre, il rapportera la copie; s’il siège au tribunal, il aura cette copie auprès de lui: enfin, s’il se met à table, la copie ne le quittera pas, car il est écrit (ib. 19): Ce livre restera devant lui, et il le lira les jours de sa vie.",
+ "Par respect pour le roi, il ne faut pas monter sur son cheval, ni s’asseoir sur son trône, ni se servir de son sceptre, ni le voir quand il est nu, ou se rasant, ou au bain, comme il est dit (ib.): tu te donneras un roi, tu auras du respect pour lui."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Trois juges statuent sur les procès d’argent. Il est bon que chacune des 2 parties choisisse un juge, et tous 2 choisissent le 3e; c’est l’opinion de R. Meir. Les autres docteurs disent: les deux juges choisis par les parties choisissent le troisième. R. Meir dit chacune des parties peut récuser le juge choisi par l’autre. Les autres docteurs disent: la partie ne peut refuser le juge de l’autre qu’en prouvant que ce juge est parent ou frappé d’incapacité judiciaire; mais elle n peut pas le refuser, s’il est apte à juger ou déclarer compétent par le tribunal. R. Meir dit: chacune des parties peut refuser les témoins de l’autre. Les autres docteurs disent: elle ne peut les refuser qu’en prouvant qu’ils sont parents, ou frappés d’incapacité judiciaire.",
+ "Si l’une des parties dit à l’autre: “j’accepte pour juges mon père et ton père”, ou “trois bergers” (ignorants), elle peut plus tard se rétracter, d’après R. Meir; mais d’après les autres docteurs, elle ne peut pas se rétracter. Si un individu est obligé de prêter serment dans la forme prescrite par la loi, et si l’autre lui dit qu’il se contenterait d’un simple serment sur la tête, il peut, d’après R. Meir, se rétracter et exiger un serment dans la forme prescrite; mais d’après les autres docteurs, il ne peut pas se rétracter.",
+ "Sont frappés de l’incapacité judiciaire d’être juge et témoin: Ceux qui jouent aux cubes, ceux qui prêtent à usure, ceux qui font des paris en faisant voler des pigeons, ceux qui font du commerce avec les fruits de l’année de relâche (Lv 4, 6). R. Juda dit: tous ces gens ne sont frappés d’incapacité judiciaire que s’ils n’ont pas d’autres occupations. S’ils ont un métier honnête, ils peuvent être juges et témoins.",
+ "Voici ceux qui sont incapables de témoigner et de juger pour cause de parenté: le frère, le frère du père, le frère de la mère, le mari de la sœur, le mari de la sœur du père, le mari de la sœur de la mère, le mari de la mère, le père de la femme (beaux parents), le mari de la sœur de la femme (beau frère); eux, leurs fils et leurs gendres, enfin le beau-fils seul. R. Yossé dit que ce sont là les idées de R. aqiba; mais l’ancienne Mishna disait: Sont frappés d’incapacité pour cause de parenté le frère du père, le fils du frère du père, tous ceux qui peuvent avoir le droit d’hériter de l’individu dans l’affaire duquel ils veulent témoigner, et tous ceux qui sont parents de l’individu dans le temps de l’acte (ou au moment de témoigner dans son affaire). Si le témoin était considéré comme parent avant d’avoir vu l’action qu’il certifie, mais ne l’était plus au moment de l’acte, il est apte à témoigner. R. Juda dit: Le gendre ne peut pas témoigner, quand même sa femme serait morte; si elle a laissé des enfants, il reste parent.",
+ "L’ami et l’ennemi sont inaptes aussi à attester. L’ami est p. ex. le garçon d’honneur (l’ami de noces, qui est incapable de témoigner dans l’affaire du marié pendant les jours de la noce; l’ennemi est celui qui ne lui a pas parlé depuis 3 jours par haine contre lui. Les autres docteurs lui dirent: on ne soupçonne pas un israélite de faux témoignage pour cause d’amitié ou de haine.",
+ "Pour s’assurer de l’exactitude des témoignages, on fait entrer les témoins dans une chambre à part; on leur fait comprendre la gravité d’un faux témoignage; on fait sortir tout le monde, on laisse seul le témoin le plus important, et on lui demande: “Comment sais-tu que cet homme doit de l’argent au demandeur”? S’il répond qu’il l’a entendu dire à quelqu’un, ou bien que le défendeur le lui a raconté, son témoignage est nul, sauf si le témoin dit: le défendeur a avoué devant nous devoir p. ex. 200 zouz. On fait venir ensuite l’autre témoin, et on l’examine de la même façon. Si les deux témoignages s’accordent entre eux, les juges commencent à délibérer. Si 2 des 3 juges veulent l’acquitter et le 3e veut le condamner, il est acquitté; si 2 veulent le condamner et le 3e veut l’acquitter, il est condamné. Si un juge veut le condamner, le deuxième veut l’acquitter, mais le troisième dit qu’il ne sait pas comment se prononcer, il faut adjoindre d’autres juges; quand même il y aurait eu 5 juges d’abord, dont 2 seraient pour l’acquittement, 2 pour la condamnation, et le 5e ne saurait pas se prononcer, il y aurait lieu d’adjoindre d’autres juges.",
+ "Quand la délibération est finie, on fait entrer les parties, et le plus grand (ou le plus âgé) des juges prononce le jugement, en disant: “toi, un tel, tu es acquitté”; “toi, un tel, tu es condamné”. Le juge ne doit pas dire plus tard avoir voté pour l’acquittement, mais que les autres ont prononcé la culpabilité, car il est écrit: tu ne seras pas médisant parmi ton peuple (Lv 19, 16), et il est écrit aussi: le médisant est celui qui révèle un secret (Pr 11, 13).",
+ "Un individu condamné par un jugement peut apporter, quand il le veut, les documents qu’il trouve après la condamnation pour l’annuler et se faire juger de nouveau. Si on lui dit d’apporter tous ses documents et ses preuves d’aujourd’hui en 30 jours, il faut qu’il les apporte avant le terme fixé; après quoi, il ne pourra pas faire annuler la condamnation. R. Simon b. Gamliel dit: Ce n’est pas sa faute, s’il n’a pas pu les trouver avant le terme et s’il les a trouvés seulement après. Si on lui a dit d’amener des témoins, d’apporter des actes en sa faveur, et qu’il ait répondu n’avoir ni témoins, ni actes, et plus tard il apporte un acte ou amène des témoins, les actes et les témoins sont nuls (on les soupçonne de faux). R. Simon b. Gamliel dit: Ce n’est pas sa faute s’il ne savait pas d’abord avoir les témoins et des actes, qu’il a trouvés seulement plus tard. S’il a dit qu’il n’a ni témoins ni actes, mais que se voyant condamné, il appelle les témoins, ou montre l’acte qu’il a dans sa ceinture (funda), les actes et les témoins sont nuls."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Les procès d’argent exigent les mêmes examens minutieux et les mêmes enquêtes que ceux où il s’agit d’une peine capitale, selon ces mots (Lv 24, 22): un même jugement nous régira. En quoi la procédure dans les procès d’argent diffère-t-elle de celle des affaires capitales? Dans les procès d’argent, il suffit de 3 juges; les procès où il s’agit d’une peine capitale en exigent 23. Dans les affaires d’argent, la discussion des juges peut commencer par l’argument favorable ou défavorable au défendeur; dans les affaires capitales, elle doit toujours commencer par l’argument favorable à l’accusé. Dans les affaires d’argent, la majorité d’une seule voix est toujours suffisante pour absoudre ou condamner, dans les affaires capitales, elle est suffisante pour acquitter, mais elle est insuffisante pour condamner, car il faut une majorité de deux voix pour condamner. Dans les affaires d’argent s’il y a erreur, le jugement est annulé; dans les affaires capitales, il est annulé si l’on a condamné par erreur, mais il n’est pas annulé si l’on a acquitté par erreur. Dans les affaires d’argent, les disciples eux-mêmes, qui ne sont pas juges mais qui assistent aux délibérations de leurs maîtres, peuvent donner leur opinion, soit en faveur du défendeur, soit contre lui; dans les affaires capitales ils peuvent donner leur opinion en faveur de l’accusé, mais non pas contre lui. Dans les affaires d’argent, chacun des juges peut changer d’opinion pendant la discussion; dans les affaires capitales, celui qui était d’abord pour la condamnation peut changer d’opinion, mais celui qui pensait d’abord devoir voter pour l’acquittement doit conserver son opinion. Dans les affaires d’argent, on commence le procès au jour et on peut le finir la nuit; dans les affaires capitales, on commence et on finit le procès pendant le jour. Dans les affaires d’argent, on peut finir le procès le même jour où on l’a commencé; dans les affaires capitales, on peut prononcer l’acquittement le même jour, mais il faut ajourner la condamnation au lendemain, dans l’espoir de trouver peut être, en attendant, un argument en faveur de l’accusé. C’est pourquoi on ne juge pas une affaire capitale la veille du jour de Shabat, ni la veille d’un jour de fête.",
+ "Dans les affaires d’argent, et dans celles de pureté ou d’impureté le plus grand des juges dit d’abord son opinion; dans les affaires capitales, on commence au contraire par le plus petit. Dans les affaires d’argent, tout le monde peut juger; dans les affaires capitales, les juges ne peuvent être que Cohanim, ou Lévites, ou d‘autres enfants d’Israël d’une naissance tellement irréprochable, que leurs filles puissent épouser des Cohanim.",
+ "Les membres du Sanhedrin siégeaient en demi-cercle, pour qu’ils puissent se voir l’un l’autre. 2 Scribes se tiennent devant eux, l’un à droite l’autre à gauche, et ils inscrivent les opinions et les motifs de ceux qui condamnent et de ceux qui acquittent. R. Juda dit qu’il faut 3 scribes, dont l’un pour ceux qui condamnent, l’autre pour ceux qui acquittent, et le troisième pour les deux catégories ensemble.",
+ "Devant les juges, se trouvent trois séries de disciples (chacune de 23 membres), dont chacune reconnaît sa place. S’il y a une vacance, elle est remplie par un de la 1re série, dont la place est aussitôt occupée par un membre de la 2e série, et la place de celui-ci est prise par un de la 3e série. Pour la vacance de la 3e série, on choisit une personne en dehors des séries; celle-ci ne siège pas toujours à la place laissée vacante par le membre de la 3e série qui est arrivé à la 2e, mais elle occupe la place qui est conforme à ses mérites.",
+ "Pour signaler la gravité du témoignage en affaire capitale, on fait entrer les témoins et on leur demande s’ils n’admettent pas l’existence du crime pour probabilité, ou par ouï dire, ou par l’avoir entendu rapporter par un homme qui mérite confiance. On leur dit encore: Peut être ne saviez-vous pas que nous allons soumettre vos déposition à un examen minutieux. Sachez qu’il y a une grande différence entre un procès d’argent et une affaire capitale; dans le premier, on peut réparer la faute par une compensation pécuniaire; dans la dernière, on est responsable du sang de l’accusé et de celui de ses descendants. Ainsi de Caïn, assassin d’Abel, il est dit (Gn 4, 10): la voix “ des sangs ” de ton frère crie vers moi de la terre; le terme des sangs (au pluriel) vise ses descendants; selon une autre explication, son sang a été répandu sur le bois et la pierre. C’est pourquoi Dieu créa Adam seul (dont les descendants remplissent le monde entier), pour nous faire voir que celui qui sauve un seul être humain sauve un monde entier, et que celui qui perd un homme doit être assimilé à celui qui perd tout un monde. Ce fait que Dieu créa un seul homme eut pour but aussi de montrer que tous les hommes sont frères, et d’empêcher que personne ne pût se croire supérieur à un individu d’une autre nation, qui aurait été le descendant d’un autre père Adam. Ce fait peut encore servir de réfutation contre la doctrine des hérétiques qui admettent plusieurs divinités. Ceci montre la toute puissance du Roi des rois, très saint: les souverains font frapper dans un seul moule une grande quantité de pièces de monnaie qui se ressemblent toutes entre elles; tandis que le Souverain suprême, le Saint bénit soit-il, a fait dans le moule d’Adam tous les hommes de la terre, et personne n’est semblable à l’autre. Aussi chacun doit se dire que le monde entier a été créé pour lui. Cependant vous, témoins, vous ne devez pas non plus vous taire, car celui qui a vu commettre un crime et ne le dit pas devant le tribunal, est coupable, selon le verset (Lv 5, 1): s’il est témoin du fait qu’il a vu ou qu’il connaît, etc. N’ayez pas peur non plus de la grande responsabilité du sang de l’accusé, car il est écrit: Si les méchants périssent, c’est une allégresse."
+ ],
+ [
+ "On examine le témoin par 7 enquêtes, savoir: dans quel septennaire (agricole) d’années, il a vu le crime, quelle année de ce septennaire, quel mois de l’année, quel jour du mois, quel jour de la semaine, à quelle heure de la journée, en quel lieu. R. Yossé dit: on demande seulement le jour, l’heure, le lieu. On lui dit: -Reconnaissez-vous que cet homme a commis le crime? L’avez-vous averti de ne pas le faire? S’il s’agit de l’accusation d’idolâtrie, on demandera: qui a-t-il adoré et par quoi?",
+ "Plus on questionne les témoins, mieux cela vaut. Un jour, les témoins dirent devant R. Zacaï avoir vu un crime commis sous un figuier, il leur adressa des questions concernant les queues des figues. Entre les enquêtes et les examens, il y a des différences: si le témoin ne sait pas répondre aux premières, son témoignage est nul. Mais si un témoin, ou même tous les deux, ne savent pas répondre aux questions appelées examens, le témoignage est valable. Si sur une question quelconque les témoins se contredisent, le témoignage est nul.-",
+ "Si un témoin dit que l’acte incriminé a eu lieu le 2e jour du mois et l’autre dit le 3e jour, le témoignage est valable, car il est possible que l’un d’eux ne sache pas si le mois précédent était plein ou non (de 29 ou 30 jours); mais si l’un dit que l’action a eu lieu le 3e jour du mois, et l’autre dit le 5e, le témoignage est nul. Si un témoin dit que l’action a eu lieu à 2 heures et l’autre dit à 3 heures, le témoignage est valable (on peut se tromper d’une heure); mais si l’un dit à 3 heures, et l’autre dit à 5 heures, le témoignage est nul. R. Juda dit qu’il est valable (selon lui, on peut se tromper de 2 heures). Si l’un dit à 5 heures et l’autre dit à 7 heures, le témoignage est nul, car on ne peut pas confondre l’heure où le soleil est à l’ouest avec l’heure où il est à l’est.–.",
+ "Après avoir bien questionné le 1er témoin, on fait entrer le 2e et on lui adresse les mêmes questions; si les réponses sont conformes à celles du premier, on délibère en commençant par des réflexions favorables à l’accusé. Si l’un des témoins dit: “J’ai un argument favorable à l’accusé”, on ne l’écoute pas. Si l’un des disciples veut produire un argument contraire à l’accusé, on ne l’écoute pas. Mais si un disciple veut dire un argument favorable à l’accusé, on lui donne une place parmi les juges où il restera toute la journée, et si son argument est admissible, on l’accepte; si l’accusé même veut parler en sa faveur, on l’écoute, pourvu que l’argument soit admissible.",
+ "Si par la délibération on reconnaît l’accusé innocent, on le libère aussitôt; mais si le tribunal croit devoir le condamner, il faut ajourner le jugement au lendemain. En attendant, les juges forment de petits groupes pour discuter entre eux (en dehors du tribunal, chez eux ou dans la rue) ils mangent peu, et ils ne boivent pas de vin de toute la journée, ils méditent toute la nuit sur le procès. Le lendemain matin ils reviennent au tribunal s'ils conservent leurs opinions, ils disent chacun j'ai acquitté ou j’ai condamné hier, et je maintiens mon idée. Celui qui condamnait la veille peut changer d’opinion pour acquitter le lendemain, mais celui qui acquittait la veille ne peut plus condamner. Si les juges se trompent en un point, les scribes qui ont écrit la veille leurs opinions et leurs motifs les leur rappellent. Si à la fin on trouve des motifs d’acquitter, on acquitte l’accusé; sinon, on passe au vote. Si des 23 juges, 12 l’acquittent et 11 condamnent, l’accusé est acquitté, à la majorité d’une voix. Si 12 condamnent et 11 acquittent, ne pouvant pas condamner avec une majorité d’une voix, on s’adjoint d’autres juges; il le faut aussi au cas où 11 condamnent, 11 acquittent, et le 23e ne peut pas se décider, ou si même 22 acquittent ou condamnent, et le dernier dit qu’il ne sait pas quelle opinion adopter. Combien de juges faut-il s’adjoindre? D’abord 2 juges. Si l’un condamne et l’autre acquitte (nombre encore insuffisant), il faut s’adjoindre d’autres, jusqu’à 70 juges. S’il y eu alors 36 qui acquittent et 35 qui condamnent on acquitte l’accusé. Si 36 condamnent et 35 acquittent, les juges discutent entre eux la question, jusqu’à ce que l’un de ceux qui condamnent change d’opinion pour voter l’acquittement."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Quand l’accusé est condamné à être lapidé, on le conduit au lieu désigné à cet effet, loin du tribunal, comme il est dit (Lv 24, 14): Fais sortir le blasphémateur hors du camp. Un homme se tenait à la porte du tribunal avec un drapeau à la main; un homme à cheval se trouvait à une distance telle qu’il pût voir le drapeau agité. Si quelqu’un du tribunal disait avoir trouvé un argument favorable à l’accusé, celui qui se tenait à la porte agitait son drapeau, et l’homme à cheval courait arrêter l’exécution. Si l’accusé lui-même disait avoir trouvé un argument en sa faveur, on le ramenait au tribunal, pour examiner cet argument; on le ramenait même 4 à 5 fois, pourvu que ce soit un argument réel. Si, après avoir reconduit le condamné au tribunal on trouve qu’il doit être acquitté, on l’acquitte; sinon, on le reconduit au supplice. On proclame devant lui: “Un tel, fils d’un tel, va au supplice pour tel ou tel crime; tels et tels sont les témoins. Si quelqu’un connaît un argument en faveur du condamné, qu’il vienne le dire”. –.",
+ "A la distance d’environ 10 coudées du lieu du supplice, on dit au condamné de se confesser; car tous les suppliciés se confessent, et celui qui se confesse aura sa part dans le monde futur. Ainsi, on trouve que Josué (Jos 7, 29) dit à Akhan: “Mon fils, attribue la gloire à l’Eternel Dieu d’Israël et rends-lui grâce; dis-moi donc ce que tu as fait; ne me cache rien. Akhan répondit à Josué et dit: je l’avoue, j’ai péché envers l’Eternel Dieu d’Israël, j’ai agi de telle et telle façon”. Et d’où sait-on que la confession lui valut le pardon? De ce qu’il est dit (ib. 25): Josué lui répondit: pourquoi nous as-tu troublés? l’Eternel te troublera aujourd’hui; en ce jour, tu seras troublé, mais non dans la vie future. S’il ne sait pas se confesser, on lui conseille de dire: “Que ma mort soit l’expiation de tous mes péchés”. R. Juda dit: Si l’accusé est convaincu de son innocence, il peut dire: “Que ma mort soit l’expiation de tous mes péchés, à l’exception de celui pour lequel on m’a condamné”. Mais les autres docteurs objectent à R. Juda que tous les condamnés en diraient autant pour se disculper et pour accuser les témoins et les juges.",
+ "Arrivé à la distance de 4 coudées du lieu du supplice, on déshabille le condamné; si c’est un homme, on le couvre par devant; si c’est une femme, on la couvre par devant et par derrière; tel est l’avis de R. Juda. Les autres docteurs disent qu’on ne déshabille pas les femmes condamnées.",
+ "Le lieu de la lapidation a une élévation double de la hauteur d’homme. Un des témoins jette le condamné par terre, de façon à ce qu’il tombe sur le dos, non sur le ventre. S’il est mort par la chute, on ne lui fait plus rien; sinon, l’autre témoins lui jette une pierre sur le cœur; s’il n’est pas encore mort, tous les assistants l’achèvent par des pierres; car il est écrit (Dt 17, 7): La main des témoins sera la première sur lui pour le faire mourir; ensuite la main de tout le peuple. Tous ceux qui sont lapidés seront pendus après la mort, selon R. Eliézer. Les autres docteurs disent: on ne pend que les condamnés pour blasphème, ou pour idolâtrie. On pend un homme la face vers le monde; la femme pendue a la face contre le gibet; c’est l’opinion de R. Eliézer. Les autres docteurs disent: les femmes ne sont pas pendues du tout. R. Eliézer leur objecta le fait de Simon b. Shetah, qui a fait pendre des femmes à Ascalon; mais ils lui répondirent: C’était une exception, puisqu’il en a condamné et fait exécuter 80 le même jour, et qu’il ne faut pas juger 2 accusés le même jour. Voici la manière de pendre le supplicié: On enfonce une poutre dans la terre; de cette poutre sort un bois comme une branche; on met alors les deux mains du supplicié l’une sur l’autre, et on le pend (par les mains). R. Yossé dit: La poutre n’est pas enfoncée, elle est debout et inclinée, de sorte que son extrémité supérieure s’appuie sur une paroi, et on pend le supplicié, comme les boucher pendent les animaux. Il faut descendre le supplicié du gibet aussitôt que la nuit arrive sous peine de contrevenir à la défense exprimée ainsi (Dt 21, 23): tu ne laisseras pas séjourner son cadavre sur le gibet, mais tu auras soin de l’enterrer le même jour; car un pendu est une chose offensante pour Dieu. On veut dire par là: puisqu’un tel a été pendu pour avoir blasphémé Dieu, il se trouverait qu’on laisse profaner le nom divin.",
+ "R. Meir dit: lorsque l’homme souffre (en punition de ses péchés), comment s’exprime la providence? La tête me pèse; mes bras me semblent trop lourds! Si l’omniscient, partout présent, se désole de ce que le sang des impies est versé, à plus forte raison il déplore le sang des justes. Du reste, il ne faut pas même laisser un simple mort toute la nuit sans l’enterrer, à moins qu’on ne retarde l’enterrement pour préparer les objets nécessaires, tels que bière et linceul. Le supplicié n’est pas enterré dans le caveau de la famille; le tribunal avait deux cimetières publics, un pour les condamnés à avoir le cou coupé, ou à être étranglés, et l’autre pour les condamnés à être lapidés ou brûlés.-",
+ "Quand la chair a disparu, on enlève les os pour les enterrer dans le caveau de la famille. Les parents (du supplicié) viennent saluer les juges et les témoins, pour montrer qu’ils ne leur en veulent pas et qu’ils reconnaissent la justesse du jugement. Ils ne faisaient pas les cérémonies de deuil, mais ils s’abstenaient des choses dont s’abstient un ônen (le parent d’un mort ordinaire) avant l’enterrement, par suite de son chagrin tout intime."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Aux termes de la Loi quatre genres de mort, auxquels on condamne pour des crimes divers, sont prononcés par les tribunaux; ainsi on condamne à être lapidé, ou brûlé, ou à avoir le cou coupé, ou à être étranglé. Simon met ces quatre genres dans un ordre différent, savoir: la condamnation à être brûlé, ou à être lapidé, ou étranglé, ou à avoir le cou coupé. Ceci s’applique aux condamnés à être lapidés.",
+ "Celui qui est condamné à être brûlé est enfoncé dans la terre molle jusqu’aux genoux (pour qu’il ne puisse pas bouger); on lui entoure le cou avec un drap dur, lequel drap dur est enveloppé dans un drap mou (pour ne pas blesser le cou), puis deux personnes tirent les deux bouts de ce drap, l’une d’un côté, et l’autre de l’autre, pour que le condamné soit forcé d’ouvrir la bouche; ensuite, on allume un fil (de métal) qu’on lui verse dans la bouche, et ce fil entre alors dans l’intestin et le brûle. R. Juda n’approuve pas cette méthode, car le condamné pourrait mourir avant d’être brûlé: il veut donc qu’on lui ouvre par force la bouche pour y verser le métal. R. Eléazar b. Zadoq cite comme précédent le fait de la fille d’un cohen, mariée, condamnée à être brûlée pour adultère; elle fut exécutée par une méthode plus simple, en allumant autour d’elle du bois. On lui répondit que ce tribunal n’était pas bien instruit.",
+ "Celui qui est condamné à être étouffé (étranglé) est enfoncé dans le sable (terre molle) jusqu’aux genoux (pour qu’il ne puisse pas bouger); on lui entoure ensuite le cou avec un drap dur, lequel drap dur est enveloppé dans un drap mou (pour ne pas blesser le cou); puis deux personnes tirent les deux bouts de ce drap, l’un d’un côté et l’autre de l’autre, jusqu’à ce que le condamné meure par asphyxie.",
+ "Voici quels coupables sont punis de mort par la lapidation: celui qui cohabite avec sa mère, ou avec la femme de son père, ou avec la femme de son fils, ou avec un homme, ou avec un animal; ou une femme qui attire un animal pour qu’il abuse d’elle; celui qui blasphème, celui qui rend un culte aux idoles; celui qui livre ses enfants à Molokh, celui qui pratique la nécromancie ou la magie (Lv 20, 6), celui qui profane le jour du Shabat; celui qui maudit son père ou sa mère, celui qui commet un adultère avec une jeune fiancée de seconde adolescence (Naara), celui qui par séduction détermine un individu ou toute une ville à rendre le culte aux divinités païennes; le sorcier, un enfant pervers et rebelle envers ses parents (Dt 21, 18). Celui qui a cohabité (par erreur) avec sa mère est soumis à 2 sacrifices, parce que c’est: 1° sa mère; 2° la femme de son père; selon R. Juda, il n’est coupable que du premier fait. Celui qui cohabite avec la femme de son père est coupable, parce qu’elle est 1° la femme de son père; 2° Une femme mariée (adultère), soit du vivant du père, soit après sa mort, fiancée ou mariée. Le crime de l’adultère avec la femme du fils est également double, quand même elle n’aurait été que fiancée au fils, et même après la mort du fils. Si un homme a des relations contre nature avec son semblable, ou avec un animal, ou si une femme fait approcher un animal pour se prostituer à lui, l’animal sera soumis à la lapidation. Puisque l’être humain a péché, pourquoi l’animal est-il frappé? L’animal est innocent, mais il était la cause d’un crime; ou encore, on ne peut pas le laisser vivre, car en le voyant passer dans la rue, on dira: Voilà l’animal qui a été la cause de la condamnation de tel individu.",
+ "Celui qui blasphème n’est condamné que s’il prononce le nom de Dieu. R. Josué b. Korha dit: Pendant la déposition des témoins (pendant la discussion qui la suit), on ne prononce pas le nom de Dieu, mais on le remplace par un qualificatif ou attribut divin; par ex. les témoins disent que l’accusé a blasphémé en disant: “que Yossé frappe (ou maudisse) Yossé”. Cependant, on ne peut pas condamner un homme sans un témoignage clair, qui établisse d’une façon certaine qu’il a prononcé réellement le nom de Dieu. Par conséquent, à la fin de la délibération (avant de prononcer la condamnation de l’accusé), on fait sortir tout le monde, pour ne pas faire prononcer un blasphème devant le public, et on demande au premier témoin de dire exactement ce qu’il a entendu, et il le dit pendant que les juges se tiennent debout, et ils font à leur vêtement la déchirure de deuil qui ne doit jamais être recousue (en entendant ce blasphème). Le 2e et le 3e témoins (s’il y en a trois) disent seulement, “j’ai entendu exactement comme le premier témoin”, et ils n’ont pas besoin de répéter le blasphème.",
+ "Celui qui rend un culte aux divinités païennes est condamné à mort, soit qu’il leur rende le culte ordinaire, soit qu’il tue un animal en leur honneur, soit qu’il leur offre l’encens ou la libation de vin, ou qu’il se prosterne devant elles, ou qu’il les adopte pour Dieu en disant: “Tu es mon Dieu”. Mais on n’est pas condamné à mort pour les avoir embrassées ou baisées, ou balayées, ou arrosées, ou baignées, ou ointes, ou habillées, ou chaussées, quoiqu’il soit défendu de le faire, en raison de la défense négative (Ex 20, 5). Au même titre de défense négative il est défendu de jurer ou de faire un vœu au nom de ces divinités. Se prostituer à l’idole Baal-Péor (Belfegor) constitue son mode d’adoration, ainsi que de jeter une pierre à Markoles (Mercure).",
+ "Celui qui livre un de ses descendants à Molokh n’est coupable que s’il lui remet son enfant et le fait passer par le feu. Si l’enfant a été livré à Molokh sans passer par le feu, ou s’il a passé par le feu sans avoir été livré à Molokh, le père n’est pas coupable: il faut les 2 actes réunis. Un conjurateur de morts est le Python; celui qui fait parler le mort de sa tombe, ou nécromancien (Lv 19, 31), le fait par opération magique parler de la bouche; ils sont passibles de la peine capitale par lapidation, et celui qui consulte les morts transgresse une défense (ibid.).",
+ "Celui qui profane le Shabat par un acte pour lequel on est passible de la peine de retranchement en cas de fait volontaire, ou du sacrifice d’expiation en cas de fait involontaire, celui qui maudit son père et sa mère, est coupable s’il les maudit par un nom de la Divinité; si c’est par un attribut divin, la culpabilité est la même, selon R. Meir; mais les autres sages déclarent un tel homme acquitté.",
+ "Celui qui cohabite avec une jeune fille fiancée est seulement coupable si elle est adolescente, vierge, fiancée, chez son père; si 2 hommes cohabitent tour à tour avec elle, le premier sera lapidé et le second étranglé.",
+ "Le séducteur est un particulier qui dit qu’il y a une divinité dans tel endroit, qui mange, boit, fait tel bien ou tel mal, il sera condamné à mort. Il y a une différence entre le séducteur et les autres coupables; ceux-ci doivent être avertis par les témoins, lesquels ne se cachent pas pour assister au crime à l’insu du coupable; le séducteur fait exception, on lui aposte des témoins en cachette sans l’avertir. Voici comment on se conduit envers le séducteur: s’il s’adresse à deux personnes pour les séduire, ces 2 personnes témoins l’amènent au tribunal (qui jugera) et le lapideront. S’il s’adresse à une seule personne, comme elle ne peut pas le faire condamner seule, cette personne lui dira: “Je connais d’autres individus qui voudront te suivre; il faut que tu leur parles”. Si le séducteur est assez adroit pour ne pas vouloir s’exposer à parler à plusieurs individus, la personne en question cherchera à l’amener dans un endroit où les témoins se tiennent en cachette. Alors la personne dira au séducteur: “Répète-moi ce que tu m’as dit déjà à propos de la Divinité”. Si celui-ci le répète, la personne en question cherchera d’abord à l’en détourner, en lui disant: “Comment veux-tu que nous abandonnions notre Dieu qui est au ciel, pour suivre des divinités qui ne sont que bois et pierres”? Si le séducteur se repent et change d’avis, on le laisse libre. Mais s’il insiste en disant qu’il faut absolument adopter cette divinité, les témoins qui se trouvent en cachette et qui entendent ses paroles l’amèneront au tribunal (qui jugera), puis le lapideront. Le séducteur dit: “je servirai l’idole, ou: j’irai l’adorer”, ou “allons l’adorer; ou: je lui sacrifierai; ou: j’irai lui sacrifier; ou: allons lui sacrifier; ou: je l’encenserai; ou: j’irai l’encenser; ou: allons l’encenser; ou: je lui ferai des libations; ou: j’irai lui faire libation; ou: allons lui faire libation; ou: je m’y prosternerai; ou: je vais me prosterner; ou: allons nous prosterner. Détourner une ville entière consiste à dire: allons et adorons les idoles.",
+ "Le magicien est coupable s’il accomplit un acte magique, mais non s’il en fait seulement le simulacre pour tromper la vue. R. aqiba dit au nom de R. Josué: il peut arriver que 2 personnes cueillent des courges par magiesup>232, et pourtant l’une d’elles pourra être dispensée et l’autre sera coupable. C’est que le véritable auteur de l’acte sera coupable, et celui qui aura seulement trompé les yeux ne sera pas coupable."
+ ],
+ [
+ "L’enfant pervers et rebelle -qui est puni d’après la Bible, (Dt 21, 18-21), doit être majeur, et d’autre part il ne doit pas être un homme fait et complètement développé physiquement; les sages s’expriment en termes décents à cet égard. Car il est écrit (ibid.): Si un homme a un fils, non une fille, ni un homme (adulte). Le mineur échappe à toute pénalité, étant dispensé d’accomplir les préceptes religieux.",
+ "Ce fils est coupable de gourmandise et d’ivrognerie lorsqu’il mange un trithmorion de viande et boit un demi log de vin d’Italie (très fort); selon R. Yossé, il devra avoir mangé une livre (Maneh) de viande et bu un log de vin pour être coupable. S’il a mangé et bu cette quantité dans un repas de service religieux, ou à la cérémonie de l’embolismie du mois, ou en consommant la 2e dîme à Jérusalem, ou en mangeant soit des chairs de charogne, soit de bêtes déchirées, ou des reptiles et des vers, ou des fruits non rédimés, ou de la 1re dîme dont l’oblation n’est pas prélevée, ou de la 2e dîme et des consécrations non rachetées (hors Jérusalem), enfin un objet qui est prescrit ou interdit par une loi religieuse, ou tout mets hors la viande, ou toute boisson, hormis le vin, il ne sera pas considéré comme fils rebelle, jusqu’à ce qu’il ait mangé de la viande (permise) et bu du vin, car il est dit (ibid.): un gourmand et un ivrogne, et bien qu’il n’y ait pas de preuve formelle qu’il faille expliquer ainsi ces 2 termes, il y est fait allusion par ces mots (Pr 13, 20): Ne sois pas parmi les gens ivres de vin, les gourmands de viande.",
+ "S’il a volé son père et mangé chez lui, ou volé d’autres et mangé chez eux, ou volé d’autres et mangé chez son père, il ne sera considéré comme fils rebelle que lorsqu’il aura volé de son père ce qu’il mange chez d’autres. R. Yossé b. R. Juda dit: il devra avoir volé son père et sa mère pour être coupable.",
+ "Si le père veut mettre un tel fils en accusation, et la mère s’y oppose, ou vice-versa, le fils ne pourra pas être taxé de rébellion; il faut pour cela l’assentiment des 2 parents. Selon R. Juda, il ne sera pas non plus taxé de rébellion s’il y a disproportion (d’aspect) entre la mère le père. Si l’un des deux parents est manchot, ou bancal, ou muet, ou aveugle, ou sourd, il est absous, car il est dit (Dt 23, 19): son père et sa mère le saisiront, ce qui est impossible à un manchot, et le feront sortir, fait impossible à un bancal; et diront, fait impossible au muet; voici notre fils, ce qu’un aveugle ne peut constater; il n’écoute pas notre voix, ce à quoi le sourd ne peut pas prétendre. Ils l’avertissement d’abord devant 3 témoins, puis (en cas d’infraction) lui infligent la peine des coups de lanière. S’il a recommencé son délit, il sera jugé par un tribunal de 23 membres; seulement, pour lui faire subir la lapidation, le tribunal devra avoir en sa présence les 3 premiers juges (qui l’ont déjà condamné), pour se conformer aux mots: Celui-ci notre fils (ibid.), celui qui a déjà subi la peine de la flagellation est devant vous. S’il a fui avant le prononcé du jugement, et dans l’intervalle de temps l’adolescence s’est achevée (productis inferioris barbae pilis), il sera acquitté; mais s’il n’a fuit qu’après le prononcé du jugement, puis l’adolescence s’est achevée, il reste coupable.",
+ "Le fils rebelle est ainsi jugé en vue de son avenir. La loi dit: mieux vaut qu’il meure moins coupable que s’il avait commis de plus grandes fautes, car la mort des pécheurs est un bien pour eux et pour le monde, tandis que celle des justes est un malheur pour eux (pour les leurs) et pour le monde. Le vin et le sommeil des impies est une jouissance pour eux et pour le monde; celui des justes est un mal pour eux et pour le monde. La dispersion des impies est agréable à eux et au monde; celle des justes est fâcheuse pour eux et pour le monde. La réunion des impies est un mal pour eux et pour le monde; celle des justes est une satisfaction pour eux et pour le monde. Le calme pour les impies est un malheur pour eux et pour le monde; celui des justes est un bienfait pour eux et pour le monde.",
+ "Le voleur qui s’introduit par effraction mérite d’être tué (Ex 22, 1&2), non pas pour le crime qu’il a commis, mais pour prévenir la fin (de tuer le propriétaire). Si ce voleur a causé des dommages en brisant quelque chose, il doit le payer s’il se trouve dans des circonstances à ne pas mériter la mort. Mais s’il mérite la mort, il ne doit plus payer dommage.",
+ "Voici les personnes que l’on peut empêcher de commettre un crime même en les tuant: celui qui poursuit son prochain pour le tuer, celui qui veut violer un homme ou une fiancée nubile. Pour tous les autres crimes, p. ex. de poursuivre un animal (ad ineundum), ou de profaner le Shabat, même pour le culte que le coupable veut rendre aux divinités païennes, on ne peut pas tuer celui qui veut les commettre pour l’empêcher de le faire."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Voici ceux qui sont condamnés à être brûlés: celui qui cohabite avec une femme et sa fille, ou la fille d’un Cohen, mariée ou fiancée, qui commet un adultère; dans la règle relative au commerce avec la mère de son épouse et celle-ci, on comprend l’union avec sa fille, avec la fille de sa fille, avec la fille de son fils, avec la fille de son épouse, avec la fille de la fille ou du fils de son épouse; enfin celui qui le commet, soit avec sa belle-mère, soit avec la mère de sa belle-mère, ou avec la mère de son beau-père.- Voici deux qui sont condamnés à la décapitation: l’assassin et les habitants de la ville coupables de paganisme (Dt 13, 16). Un individu qui a assassiné quelqu’un avec une pierre ou avec un instrument de fer, ou qui l’a tué en le maintenant dans l’eau ou dans le feu de manière à ce qu’il ne pût pas en sortir, est condamné à mort; mais si en le poussant dans l’eau ou dans le feu, l’autre pouvait en sortir, bien qu’il soit mort, le coupable n’est pas condamné à mort. S’il a excité un chien ou un serpent contre quelqu’un, il n’est pas condamné à mort. Si en tenant le serpent, il lui a fait mordre quelqu’un, R. Juda dit que l’auteur de ce fait est condamné à mort; mais les autres docteurs ne le condamnent pas. Un individu a donné des coups à un autre, et l’on a jugé ces coups mortels; puis la victime allant mieux, on a jugé qu’elle allait guérir; enfin son état s’est aggravé, et la victime est morte; dans ce cas, le coupable est condamné à mort. R. Nehemiah dit qu’il est acquitté, car l’amélioration que la victime avait éprouvée prouve qu’elle n’est pas morte des coups.",
+ "Si un individu a voulu tuer un animal et qu’il ait tué un homme, il n’est pas condamné à mort. S’il a voulu frapper un païen, non un israélite, ou un avorton, non un être né viable, ou s’il a voulu frapper un homme dans une partie où le coup n’aurait pas été mortel, mais que le coup ait porté au cœur, où il était mortel, le coupable n’est pas condamné à mort; s’il a eu l’intention de frapper au cœur, où le coup aurait été mortel, mais le coup a porté sur un endroit où le coup n’a pas été mortel, quoique la victime soit morte, le coupable n’est pas condamné à mort. S’il a voulu frapper une grande personne que le coup n’aurait pas tuée, mais le coup a porté sur un enfant pour lequel il était mortel, le coupable n’est pas condamné à mort. S’il a voulu frapper un enfant que le coup aurait tué, mais, le coup a porté sur une grande personne pour laquelle il n’était pas mortel, quoique la grande personne soit morte, le coupable n’est pas condamné à mort. Mais s’il a voulu frapper sur une partie du corps où le coup aurait été mortel, et le coup a porté au cœur où le coup était également mortel, le coupable est condamné à mort. De même, s’il a voulu frapper une grande personne pour laquelle le coup aurait été mortel, et si le coup a porté sur un enfant qui en est mort, le coupable est condamné à mort. R. Simon dit: si quelqu’un a voulu tuer un individu et a atteint un autre, il n’est pas condamné à mort.",
+ "Si un assassin est confondu avec d’autres personnes, on les acquitte tous; selon R. Juda, on les met en prison. Si divers condamnés, chacun à un autre genre de mort, sont confondus entre eux, on leur applique le genre de mort le moins douloureux. Si un condamné à être lapidé est confondu avec un condamné à être brûlé, R. Simon dit qu’ils sont lapidés tous les deux, car c’est le genre de mort le moins douloureux des deux; les autres docteurs disent qu’ils seront brûlés, car au contraire, la mort par brûlure est moins grave que celle par lapidation. R. Simon dit alors aux autres docteurs: Si la mort par brûlure n’était pas la plus grave, la Bible ne l’aurait pas prescrite pour une femme mariée, fille d’un cohen, qui commet un adultère. Mais les autres docteurs lui répondirent: Si la mort par la lapidation n’était pas la plus grave, la Bible ne l’aurait pas prescrite pour celui qui rend un culte aux divinités païennes. Si un condamné à la décapitation est confondu avec un condamné à la strangulation, R. Simon dit qu’ils auront tous les deux le cou coupé; les autres docteurs disent qu’on les étrangle (car l’étranglement est moins pénible que l’autre genre de mort).",
+ "Si un individu a commis deux crimes, dont chacun est puni d’un genre de mort différent, on lui applique celui qui est le plus grave des deux. S’il a commis une action qui mérite doublement la mort, on applique au coupable le genre de mort le plus grave des deux. R. Yossé dit que si l’action est criminelle par deux causes, il faut savoir quelle cause est la plus ancienne.",
+ "Si après avoir subi la peine des coups 2 fois pour infraction d’une défense, quelqu’un la transgresse une 3e fois, le tribunal l’incarcérera dans un cachot voûté, et là, après lui avoir donné fort peu à manger et à boire (de façon à contracter les intestins) on lui fera manger de l’orge, jusqu’à ce que les intestins éclatent. S’il est certain que quelqu’un a assassiné, sans qu’il y ait attestation conforme, on placera le coupable dans un cachot voûté; on le fera d’abord manger et boire fort peu, puis on le gavera d’orge, de façon à provoquer une mort indirecte.",
+ "Quiconque enlève la couverture (qui sert à couvrir les vases sacrés), ou blasphème Dieu par des sacrilèges, ou cohabite avec une femme araméenne, est frappé par les zélateurs. Le cohen qui opère au Temple à l’état impur ne sera pas traduit devant le tribunal par ses frères (égaux); mais les adolescents du sacerdoce (apprentis) le feront sortir de l’enceinte sacrée et lui briseront le crâne à coup de bûche. Un étranger à la race sacerdotale qui aura servi au Temple sera passible de la strangulation, selon R. aqiba; d’après les autres docteurs, il sera puni de la mort par voie céleste (non par les hommes)."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Tous les Israélites ont part à la vie future, selon ces mots (Is 60, 21): ceux de ton peuple sont tous justes, ils posséderont la terre pour l’éternité, un rejeton de ma plantation, une œuvre de mes mains, pour être glorifié. Voici ceux qui n’ont pas de part à la vie future; celui qui prétend que la résurrection des morts n’est pas énoncée dans la Bible, ou que la loi n’émane pas du ciel, ou l’épicurien (Epicureus). R. aqiba y comprend aussi celui qui s’adonne à la lecture des livres extérieurs (ou hérétiques), ou celui qui, à la vue d’une plaie, dit à voix basse (pour exorciser) les mots (Ex 15, 26): je ne t’imposerai aucune des maladies suggérées à l’Egypte, car je suis l’Eternel qui te guérit. Abba Saül y englobe celui qui énonce le nom divin par ses quatre lettres (le tétragramme dit comme il est écrit).",
+ "Trois rois et quatre simples particuliers n’ont pas de part à la vie future. Les trois rois sont: Jéroboam, Achab et Manassé. R. Juda dit: Manassé aura une part à la vie future, car il est dit (2R 32, 13): Il pria Dieu qui l’exauça, accueillit sa supplication, et le réintégra à Jérusalem, dans son royaume. Mais les docteurs répliquent: Dieu l’a réintégré dans son royaume, non dans sa part de vie future. Les quatre simples particuliers sont: Balaam, Doëg, Ahitofel, et Guehazi.",
+ "Les contemporains du déluge n’ont pas de part à la vie future et ne ressusciteront pas au jour du jugement dernier, car il est dit (Gn 6, 3): Mon esprit ne jugera pas toujours en l’homme; les hommes de cette génération n’a donc à espérer ni jugement, ni nouveau souffle. La génération du temps de la dispersion des hommes (tour de Babel) n’a pas de part à la vie future, car il est dit (ibid. 6, 5): Dieu les dispersa de là sur la surface de toute la terre; or, “Dieu les dispersa” en ce bas monde, et il les dispersa “de là”, les écartant de la vie future. Les habitants de Sodome n’ont pas de part à la vie future, car il est dit (ibid. 11): les habitants de Sodome étaient des impies et de très grands pécheurs contre l’Eternel; “impies” en ce bas monde et “pécheurs” en la vie future. Mais ils ressusciteront pour le jugement dernier. R. Néhémie dit: ni les uns, ni les autres, ne ressusciteront pour le jugement, comme il est dit (Ps 1, 5): C’est pourquoi les impies n’assisteront pas en justice, ni les pécheurs dans la communauté des justes. Les premiers mots, “aussi les impies n’assisteront pas en justice”, s’appliquent aux contemporains du déluge;et la suite, “ni les pécheurs”, se réfère aux habitants de Sodome. Mais on lui objecta ceci: ils ne se trouvent pas, il est vrai, “dans la communauté des justes”, mais ils sont parmi les impies (qui assisteront au jugement dernier). Les explorateurs n’ont pas de part à la vie future, car il est dit (Nb 19, 34): Ils moururent les hommes qui répandirent à faux d’aussi mauvaises nouvelles sur le pays, par la peste, devant l’Eternel. Or, “ils moururent” en ce bas monde; “par la peste”, pour la vie future. Ceux qui séjournèrent (40 ans) au désert n’ont pas de part à la vie future, et ils n’assisteront pas au jugement dernier, car il est dit (ibid. 35): dans ce désert ils seront anéantis, et ils mourront là. Tel est l’avis de R. aqiba. Selon R. Eliézer au contraire, à eux s’applique ce verset (Ps 50, 5): Assemblez-moi mes gens pieux qui ont conclu avec moi une alliance par le sacrifice. La horde de Qorah ne remontera plus du sol, car il est dit (Nb 16, 33): la terre les a recouverts, en ce bas monde, et ils ont disparu de la communauté, en la vie future. Tel est l’avis de R. aqiba. R. Eliézer au contraire dit de leur appliquer ces mots (1S 2, 6): l’Eternel tue et ressuscite, il fait descendre dans la fosse et en fait remonter. Les dix tribus ne reviendront plus, car il est dit (Dt 29, 28): Il les rejettera dans un autre pays, comme ce jour; or, comme “ce jour” une fois écoulé ne revient plus, de même les dix tribus partiront et ne reviendront plus. Tel est l’avis de R. aqiba. R. Eliézer au contraire dit: comme le jour après avoir été sombre redevient clair, de même les dix tribus dont le sort aura été obscurci, brilleront d’une nouvelle clarté.",
+ "Les habitants d’une ville qui se livre à l’idolâtrie n’ont pas de part à la vie future, car il est dit (Dt 13, 13): des gens sans aveu sont sortis de ton sein et ont séduit les habitants de leur ville. Ils seront seulement tués, lorsque les détracteurs sont de la même ville et de la même tribu, que la majorité des gens aura été détournée, et ce, par des hommes. Si les détracteurs sont des femmes, ou des mineurs, ou si la minorité est seule livrée à l’idolâtrie, ou si les détracteurs sont des gens du dehors, on les considère comme isolés. Pour chacun d’eux, il faudra deux témoins et un avertissement, avant de pouvoir les condamner de ce fait. Toutefois, le cas de gens isolés a ceci de plus grave que des gens nombreux, réunis, en ce que les isolés sont condamnés à la peine de mort par la strangulation, à la suite de quoi, leur fortune est sauve (et revient à leurs héritiers), tandis qu’un ensemble de malfaiteurs sera condamné à la décapitation, avec privation de leurs biens.",
+ "Il est dit (Dt 13, 13): tu frapperas les habitants de la ville au fil de l’épée, etc. Ceci nous enseigne que les âniers et les chameliers qui passent d’un endroit à l’autre, peuvent sauver une telle ville. Puis il est dit: Mets la en anathème avec tout ce qu’elle contient, et tue ses bestiaux par le sabre. On en conclut ceci: même les biens des justes se trouvant dans cette ville devront être anéantis; mais ce qui est en dehors d’elle sera sauvé; tandis que le bien des impies, soit dans elle, soit au dehors, devra être anéanti.",
+ "Il est dit (ib. 17): tu réuniras tout le butin sur la place publique, etc. S’il n’y a pas de place publique, on en fait une; s’il y en a une auprès d’elle au dehors, on y réunit le butin amassé. Puis: tu brûleras par le feu la ville avec tout le butin, entièrement à l’Eternel ton Dieu, non ce qui appartient au ciel. On conclut de là que l’on devra racheter les saintetés qui s’y trouvent. On laissera pourrir sur place les oblations sacerdotales; on enfouira la seconde dîme et les écrits sacrés (la bible). “Entièrement à l’Eternel ton Dieu”, c’est que, selon R. Simon, le très saint dit: si vous exercez une stricte juste à l’égard de la ville idolâtre, je considérerai ce sacrifice à l’égal d’un holocauste offert devant moi. Elle sera un monceau éternel, que l’on ne réédifiera pas, et ne sera même pas transformée en jardins, ou potagers. Tel est l’avis de.R. Yossé, le galiléen. R. aqiba dit: “elle ne sera plus reconstruite” telle qu’elle était d’abord, mais on pourra convertir le sol en plantations de jardins. \"“Et tu ne garderas rien en main de la mise en anathème afin que l’Eternel revienne sur les effets de sa colère, donne les preuves de sa miséricorde, qu’il ait pitié de toi et te fasse grandir; car aussi longtemps que les impies sont de ce monde, la colère à leur égard subsiste;mais avec leur destruction, la colère disparaît du monde”."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Voici ceux qui sont condamnés à être étranglés: celui qui frappe son père et sa mère, celui qui viole un homme, l’ancien qui agit contrairement à la décision du grand tribunal de Jérusalem (Dt 17, 12), un faux prophète, celui qui prophétise au nom d’une divinité païenne, celui qui commet un adultère avec une femme mariée, les faux témoins qui ont déposé que la fille d’un cohen a commis un adultère et qui ont été convaincus de faux, celui qui commet un adultère avec la fille d’un cohen qui est marié. Celui qui frappe son père ou sa mère n’est condamné à mort que s’il a fait une blessure. Voici sous quel rapport la malédiction est plus grave que le coup: celui qui maudit son père et sa mère, en prononçant la malédiction qui est punie de mort, est condamné quand même il le fait après la mort de ses parents, tandis que celui qui frappe son père ou sa mère après la mort n’est pas condamné à mort (puisqu’après la mort il n’y a pas de blessure). Celui qui vole un homme n’est condamné à mort que s’il l’a amené chez lui et s’il l’a vendu ensuite. R. Juda dit qu’il n’est condamné à mort que s’il l’a amené chez lui et s’il s’est fait servir par lui avant de le vendre, comme il est dit (Dt 24, 7): s’il l’a asservi, et l’a vendu; si quelqu’un a volé son fils et s’il l’a vendu, il est condamné à mort d’après R. Ismaël le fils de R. Yohanan b. Broqah; mais les autres docteurs disent qu’il n’est pas condamné à mort. De même celui qui a volé un individu à moitié esclave et à moitié affranchi sera condamné, selon R. Juda; les autres docteurs ne le condamnent pas.",
+ "L’ancien qui agit contrairement à la décision du grand tribunal de Jérusalem est condamné à mort, car il est dit (Dt 17, 8): lorsqu’une affaire te sera trop difficile à démêler, dans une cause criminelle ou civile. Il y avait dans le temple trois tribunaux, dont le premier siégeait près de la porte dite de la montage sainte; le deuxième siégeait plus haut, près de la porte du parvis, et le troisième occupait la porte la plus élevée, en siégeant dans la cellule au bois. Si dans la province un ancien n’était pas d’accord avec les autres juges ses collègues, il venait avec eux à Jérusalem, d’abord au premier tribunal qui siégeait à l’entrée de la montage sainte et disait “Voici mon opinion, voici celle de mes collègue; qu’en dites-vous”? Si ce tribunal avait sur ce point une tradition, il la leur communiquait; sinon, ils allaient au deuxième tribunal séant au parvis, pour lui dire: “Voici mon opinion, voici celle de mes collègues; qu’en dites-vous”? Si le deuxième tribunal avait une tradition, il la disait; sinon, ils allaient tous au grand tribunal supérieur, dont la juridiction s’étendait sur tout Israël, selon ces mots (ibid. 17): de l’endroit que Dieu choisira. Cet ancien en retournant dans sa ville était obligé de se conformer à la décision du tribunal de Jérusalem. Cependant, s’il continue à enseigner comme auparavant, sans égard pour l’opinion du tribunal de Jérusalem, il n’est pas condamné; mais s’il fait exécuter ses jugements contraires à la décision du tribunal de Jérusalem, il est condamné à mort, selon ces mots (ibid. 12): l’homme qui agit avec préméditation, etc. Le disciple qui a rendu un jugement pareil pour le faire exécuter n’est pas condamné à mort; de sorte que la circonstance aggravante (qu’il ose rendre ce jugement sans avoir l’autorisation) devient pour lui un avantage (qui l’exonère de la peine de mort).",
+ "Sous un autre rapport, les paroles des docteurs sont plus graves que celles de la loi écrite. Ainsi, lorsque l’ancien enseigne ce qui est contraire à la parole du Pentateuque, s’il dit par exemple qu’il ne faut pas mettre des phylactères, il n’est pas condamné à mort, car tout le monde connaît cette loi de la Bible (Dt 6, 8), et l’ancien ne peut tromper personne. Mais s’il enseigne ce qui est contraire seulement à la tradition fixée par les docteurs, comme d’avoir 5 cases dans les phylactères (au lieu de 4), il est condamné.",
+ "L’ancien qui agit contrairement à la décision du tribunal de Jérusalem, et qui est condamné à mort, n’est pas exécuté dans sa ville, ni même dans Yabneh (quand le tribunal se fut exilé à Yabneh), mais on l’amène à Jérusalem (quand le tribunal est encore là), et on le garde jusqu’à la fête prochaine, pour l’exécuter quand on s’y assemble de tous les pays en pèlerinage, selon ces mots (Dt 17, 13): tout le peuple l’apprendra et aura peur. C’est l’opinion de R. aqiba. R. Judah dit qu’il ne faut pas tourmenter le condamné, en lui faisant souffrir la longue attente de la mort, mais on l’exécutera de suite, et l’on écrit dans tous les pays: “Tel individu, fils d’un tel, a été condamné à mort par le tribunal”.",
+ "Le faux prophète est condamné s’il prophétise ce qu’il n’a pas entendu, ou ce qui ne lui a pas été dit; mais celui qui ne fait pas connaître sa prophétie, ou le prophète qui agit contrairement à sa prophétie, ou un autre individu qui n’écoute pas le prophète, n’est pas condamné par des hommes, car l’Ecriture dit: je lui en demanderai compte moi-même (Dt 18, 19).",
+ "Celui qui prophétise au nom d’une divinité païenne, quoiqu’il parle conformément à la loi, déclarant impur ce qui l’est et pur ce qui l’est, est condamné. Celui qui commet un adultère avec une femme mariée, même avant la cohabitation de celle-ci avec son mari, est condamné à être étranglé. Celui qui comment un adultère avec une femme mariée qui est la fille d’un cohen est aussi condamné à être étranglé, quoique cette femme soit condamnée à être brûlée. Enfin les témoins qui ont voulu faire condamner cette fille d’un cohen et un autre individu, en faisant contre eux une fausse déposition, et qui sont démentis (convaincus de faux), sont condamnés à subir le genre de mort auquel ils ont voulu faire condamner l’individu."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Mischnajot mit deutscher \303\234bersetzung und Erkl\303\244rung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de].json" "b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Mischnajot mit deutscher \303\234bersetzung und Erkl\303\244rung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de].json"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0045aa8c431ff9abc2d589ba3c743000518c09eb
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Mischnajot mit deutscher \303\234bersetzung und Erkl\303\244rung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de].json"
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.talmud.de/tlmd/die-deutsche-mischna-uebersetzung",
+ "versionTitle": "Mischnajot mit deutscher Übersetzung und Erklärung. Berlin 1887-1933 [de]",
+ "priority": 0.5,
+ "versionNotes": "Ordnung Seraïm, übers. und erklärt von Ascher Samter. 1887.
Ordnung Moed, von Eduard Baneth. 1887-1927.
Ordnung Naschim, von Marcus Petuchowski u. Simon Schlesinger. 1896-1933.
Ordnung Nesikin, von David Hoffmann. 1893-1898.
Ordnung Kodaschim, von John Cohn. 1910-1925.
Ordnung Toharot, von David Hoffmann, John Cohn und Moses Auerbach. 1910-1933.",
+ "actualLanguage": "de",
+ "languageFamilyName": "german",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Privatrechtssachen (werden) von Dreien (entschieden), über Raub und Körperverletzungen (wird) von Dreien (gerichtet), über Schadenersatz, halben Schadenersatz, Bezahlung des Doppelten und Bezahlung des Vier- oder Fünffachen (ebenfalls) von Dreien, über Notzucht, Verführung und falsche Anklage (ebenfalls) von Dreien. Dies die Worte R. Meïr’s. Die Weisen aber sagen: Der falsche Ankläger (wird) von drei und zwanzig (gerichtet), weil dabei über ein Kapitalverbrechen verhandelt wird.",
+ "Über Geisselstrafe (wird) von Dreien (entschieden). Im Namen R. Ismael’s hat man gesagt: Von drei und zwanzig. Die Intercalation beim Monate erfolgt durch drei, die Intercalation beim Jahre (ebenfalls) durch drei. Dies die Worte R. Meïr’s. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Zur Eröffnung sind drei, zur Verhandlung fünf und zur Beschlussfassung sieben Männner nötig; haben aber drei den Beschluss gefasst, so gilt die Intercalation.",
+ "Das Handauflegen der Ältesten und das Brechen des Genickes der Färse geschieht durch drei. Dies die Worte R. Simon’s. R. Jehuda sagt: Durch fünf. Chaliza und Méun (geschehen) vor Dreien. Früchte von vierjährigen Bäumen und zweiter Zehnt, dessen Wert nicht bekannt ist, (werden) vor Dreien (ausgelöst); (ebenso) geheiligte Dinge vor Dreien. Schätzungs-Gelübde (werden) in Mobilien vor Dreien (bezahlt). R. Jehuda sagt: Einer von ihnen sei ein Priester. In Grundstücken (bezahle man dieselben) vor neun Personen und einem Priester. Beim Menschen (wird der Wert) in gleicher Weise (bestimmt).",
+ "Lebens-Strafsachen (gehören vor ein Gericht) von drei und zwanzig; (ebenso wird über) das unnatürlich belegende oder belegte Vieh von drei und zwanzig Richtern (abgeurteilt), denn es heisst (Lev. 20, 16): „Du sollst das Weib und das Vieh töten,“ ferner (Das. V. 15): „Und auch das Vieh sollt ihr töten.“ Ein zu steinigender Ochs (wird) von drei und zwanzig Richtern (verurteilt), denn es heisst (Exod. 21, 29): „Der Ochs werde gesteinigt, und auch dessen Eigentümer soll sterben“; wie die Tötung des Eigentümers, so (geschehe) die Tötung des Ochsen. Der Wolf, der Löwe, der Bär, der Leopard, der Panther und die Schlange — deren Tötung (erfolgt) durch dreiundzwanzig Richter. R. Elieser sagt: Wer sie früher umbringt, macht sich verdient. R. Akiba sagt: Ihre Tötung (erfolgt) durch drei und zwanzig Richter.",
+ "Man darf einen Stamm, einen falschen Propheten oder den Hohenpriester nur durch das Gericht von einundsiebzig Männern richten. Man darf zu einem willkürlichen Krieg nur nach Entscheidung des Gerichtes von einundsiebzig(das Heer) hinausführen. Man darf die Stadt oder die Tempelhöfe nur nach Entscheidung des Gerichtes von einundsiebzig erweitern. Man darf Gerichte für die Stämme nur nach Anordnung des Gerichtes von einundsiebzig einsetzen. Eine verderbte Stadt darf nur durch das Gericht von einundsiebzig verurteilt werden. Man verurteilt nicht eine verderbte Stadt, die an der Grenze liegt, ferner nicht drei Städte, sondern nur eine oder zwei.",
+ "Das grosse Synedrion bestand aus einundsiebzig Mitgliedern, das kleine aus dreiundzwanzig. Woher (wissen wir), dass das grosse aus einundsiebzig bestand? Da es heisst (Num. 11, 16): „Versammle mir siebzig Männer aus den Ältesten Israels“ — und Mose über ihnen. das sind einundsiebzig. R. Jehuda sagt: Siebzig. Und woher (wissen wir), dass das kleine aus dreiundzwanzig besteht? Da es heisst (Num. 35, 24 u 25): „Es richte die Gemeinde — es rette die Gemeinde“ — eine richtende Gemeinde und eine rettende Gemeinde, das sind zwanzig. Woher (wissen wir) aber, dass eine Gemeinde aus zehn Männern besteht? Da es heisst (Num. 14, 27): „Wie lange (friste ich) dieser bösen Gemeinde“ — dabei sind Josua und Kaleb ausgenommen. Und woher (wissen wir), dass man noch drei hinzufüge? Daraus, dass es heisst (Exod. 23, 2): „Richte dich nicht nach der Mehrheit zum Bösen, “ kann ich doch entnehmen, dass ich mich zum Guten nach ihnen richten soll; wozu heisst es nun (nochmals): „man richte sich nach der Mehrheit“? Dies lehrt: Nicht wie deine Entscheidung zum Guten soll deine Entscheidung zum Bösen sein; zum Guten kannst du auf das Urteil eines Richters hin entscheiden, zum Bösen aber nur nach dem Urteile zweier. Da aber kein Gericht in gerader Zahl sein darf, so fügt man noch einen hinzu, das sind (zusammen) dreiundzwanzig. Wie viel (Einwohner) müssen in einer Stadt sein, dass sie für ein Synedrion geeignet sei? Hundertundzwanzig. R. Nechemia sagt: Zweihundertunddreissig, damit es den Obern über zehn entspreche."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Der Hohepriester kann richten, und man kann ihn richten; er kann Zeuge sein, und man kann wider ihn zeugen; er kann die Chaliza vollziehen, und man kann an seiner Frau die Chaliza vollziehen. Man kann auch an seiner Frau die Schwagerehe vollziehen, er aber darf nicht die Schwagerehe vollziehen, weil ihm eine Witwe (zu heiraten) verboten ist. Stirbt ihm jemand, so gehe er nicht hinter der Bahre; sondern wenn sie nicht mehr gesehen werden, darf er sich zeigen, so wie sie wieder sich zeigen, muss er sich zurückziehen, und so gehe er mit ihnen bis an das Thor der Stadt. Dies die Worte R. Meïr’s. R. Jehuda sagt: Er gehe nicht aus dem Heiligtum, denn es heisst (Lev. 21, 12): „Und aus dem Heiligtum soll er nicht gehen.“ Wenn er Andere tröstet, so ist es Sitte, dass das ganze Volk Einer nach dem Andern vorbeigeht und der Stellvertreter ihn zwischen sich und dem Volke in die Mitte nimmt. Wenn er von Andern getröstet wird, so spricht das ganze Volk zu ihm: „Wir seien deine Sühne !“; — er spricht (darauf) zu ihnen: „Seid vom Himmel gesegnet!“. Wenn man ihm das Trauermahl reicht, lagert sich das ganze Volk auf der Erde, er aber liegt auf einem Schemel.",
+ "Der König kann nicht richten, und man kann ihn nicht richten; er kann nicht Zeuge sein, und man kann wider ihn nicht zeugen; er vollziehe nicht die Chaliza, und man vollziehe an seiner Frau nicht die Chaliza; er vollziehe nicht die Schwagerehe, und man vollziehe an seiner Frau nicht die Schwagerehe. R. Jehuda sagt: Wenn er die Chaliza oder die Schwagerehe vollziehen will, so sei seiner zum Guten gedacht! Da sagten sie zu ihm: Man hört nicht auf ihn. Man darf seine Witwe nicht heiraten. R. Jehuda sagt: Ein König darf die Witwe eines Königs heiraten, denn so finden wir bei David, dass er die Witwe Saul’s geheiratet hat, wie es heisst (2. Sam. 12, 8): „Ich gab dir das Haus deines Herrn und die Weiber deines Herrn in deinen Schooss“.",
+ "Stirbt ihm Jemand, so gehe er nicht zum Thore seines Palastes hinaus. R. Jehuda sagt: Wenn er hinter der Bahre einhergehen will, so darf er hinausgehen, denn so finden wir bei David, dass er hinter der Bahre Abner’s einherging, wie es heisst (2 Sam. 3, 31): „Der König David ging hinter der Bahre.“ Da sprachen sie Wenn man ihm das Trauermahl reicht, sitzt das ganze Volk auf der Erde, er aber liegt auf einem Sofa.",
+ "Er kann zu einem willkürlichen Kriege nach Entscheidung des Gerichtshofes von einundsiebzig (das Volk) hinausführen; er darf niederreissen, um sich einen Weg zu machen, und man kann es ihm nicht verwehren; der Weg des Königs hat kein Maass. Das ganze Volk muss, was es erbeutet, ihm vorlegen, und er nimmt (seinen) Anteil zuerst. — „Er darf sich nicht viele Weiber nehmen,“ sondern nur achtzehn. R. Jehuda sagt: Er darf sich viele nehmen, nur dass sie nicht sein Herz abtrünnig machen. R. Simon sagt: Selbst eine, die sein Herz abtrünnig machen würde — siehe, er darf sie nicht nehmen! Wenn dem so ist, warum wird befohlen: „er soll sich nicht viele Weiber nehmen“? Selbst solche wie Abigajil. „Er soll sich nicht viele Rosse halten,“ —sondern nur was für seine Wagen nötig ist; „und Silber und Gold soll er nicht in Menge anschaffen,“ — sondern nur so viel, um den Sold bezahlen zu können. Er schreibe für sich eine Gesetzrolle; wenn er in den Krieg zieht, führe er sie mit sich hinaus; wenn er heimzieht, führe er sie mit sich herein; wenn er zu Gericht sitzt, sei sie bei ihm; sitzt er bei Tische, sei sie ihm gegenüber, denn es heisst (Deut. 17, 19): „Sie sei bei ihm, und er lese darin alle Tage seines Lebens!“",
+ "Man darf nicht auf seinem Pferde reiten, man darf nicht auf seinem Throne sitzen, und man darf nicht seines Szepters sich bedienen. Man darf ihn nicht sehen, während er sich das Haar scheren lässt, nicht, wenn er nackt ist, und nicht, wenn er im Bade ist, denn es heisst (Deut. 17, 15): „Du sollst über dich einen König setzen!“ (das heisst): Es sei die Ehrfurcht vor ihm über dir!"
+ ],
+ [
+ "Privatrechtssachen werden von Dreien entschieden. Der Eine wählt sich Einen, und der Andere wählt sich (ebenfalls) Einen, und Beide wählen sich (gemeinschaftlich) noch einen. Dies die Worte R. Meïr’s. Die Weisen aber sagen: Die zwei Richter wählen sich noch. Einen. Dieser kann den von Jenem gewählten Richter verwerfen, und Jener kann den von diesem gewählten Richter verwerfen. Dies die Worte R. Meïr’s. Die Weisen aber sagen: Wann (gilt dies)? Wenn man einen Beweis gegen sie erbringt, dass sie anverwandt oder untauglich sind, wenn sie aber tauglich oder rechtsgelehrt sind, kann man sie nicht verwerfen. Dieser kann die Zeugen von Jenem verwerfen, und Jener kann die Zeugen von diesem verwerfen. Dies die Worte R. Meïr’s. Die Weisen aber sagen: Wann (gilt dies)? Wenn man gegen sie den Beweis erbringt, dass sie anverwandt oder untauglich sind, wenn sie aber tauglich sind, kann man sie nicht verwerfen",
+ "Hat er zu ihm gesagt: „mein Vater ist mir beglaubigt,“ — „dein Vater ist mir beglaubigt,“ oder „drei Rinderhirten sind mir beglaubigt,“ so sagt R. Meïr: Er kann es zurücknehmen. Die Weisen aber sagen: Er kann es nicht zurücknehmen. War einer seinem Nächsten einen Eid schuldig und dieser sagte zu ihm: „gelobe mir bei deinem Leben! “, — so sagt R. Meïr: Er kann es zurücknehmen. Die Weisen aber sagen: Er kann es nicht zurücknehmen.",
+ "Folgende sind untauglich (zu Richtern oder Zeugen): Ein Würfelspieler, ein Wucherer, die, welche Tauben fliegen lassen, und die, welche mit Brachjahr-Frucht handeln. Es sagt R. Simon: Früher hatte man sie genannt: „Sammler von Brachjahr-Frucht;“ seitdem aber viele Gewalthaber auftraten, nannte man sie: „Brachjahr-Fruchthändler.“ Es sagt R. Jehuda: Wann (gilt dies)? Wenn sie keinen anderen Erwerb haben, als diesen, wenn sie aber ausser diesem noch einen anderen Erwerb haben, sind sie tauglich.",
+ "Folgende sind die Anverwandten: (Vater), Bruder, des Vaters Bruder, der Mutter Bruder, der Schwester Mann, des Vaters Schwestermann, der Mutter Schwestermann, der Stiefvater, der Schwiegervater und der Schwestermann der Gattin. Diese (gelten als verwandt) nebst ihren Söhnen und Schwiegersöhnen; der Stiefsohn dagegen nur für sich allein. Es sagt R. Jose: Dies ist die Mischna des R. Akiba, die erste Mischna aber lautete: „der Oheim und der Sohn des Oheims und Jeder, der fähig ist ihn zu beerben.“ Jeder, der mit ihm zur Zeit (der Handlung) verwandt war, (ist untauglich); war er anverwandt und ist (nachher) entfremdet worden, so ist er tauglich. R. Jehuda sagt: Selbst wenn seine Tochter gestorben ist und der Schwiegersohn Kinder von ihr hat, gilt er noch als Anverwandter.",
+ "Der Freund und der Feind (sind ebenfalls untauglich). Freund heisst der Hochzeitsfreund; Feind heisst Jeder, der mit ihm aus Feindschaft drei Tage nicht gesprochen hat. Da sagten sie zu ihm: Israel ist deswegen nicht in Verdacht.",
+ "In welcher Weise prüft man die Zeugen? Man führt sie (in ein Zimmer) hinein und macht ihnen Angst; dann heisst man alle Leute hinausgehen, lässt nur den grössten unter ihnen anwesend und sagt zu ihm: „sprich, wieso weisst du, dass dieser jenem schuldig sei?“ Wenn er sagt: Dieser hat mir gesagt: „ich bin jenem schuldig,“ — oder: „der und der Mann hat mir gesagt, dass dieser jenem schuldig sei;“ so hat er Nichts gesagt, sondern er muss sagen: „Vor uns hat er zugestanden, dass er jenem zweihundert Sus schuldig sei.“ Hernach führt man den Zweiten herein und prüft ihn. Finden sich ihre Aussagen übereinstimmend, so verhandelt man über die Sache. Sagen zwei: „gerecht!“, und einer sagt: „schuldig!“, so wird er für gerecht erklärt. Sagt Einer: „gerecht!“ und Einer sagt: „schuldig!“, sogar wenn zwei ihn für gerecht oder zwei für schuldig erklären, und Einer sagt: „ich weiss nicht!“, so muss man die (Zahl der) Richter vermehren.",
+ ". Nachdem man das Urteil beschlossen hat, führt man sie herein. Der grösste unter den Richtern sagt dann: „Du N. bist gerecht,“ — „Du N. bist schuldig!“. Woher (wissen wir), dass einer von den Richtern, nachdem er hinausgegangen ist, nicht sagen darf: „ich habe frei gesprochen, und meine Kollegen haben verurteilt, was kann ich tun, da meine Kollegen mich überstimmt haben“ ? — Von einem solchen heisst es (Lev. 19, 16): „Gehe nicht als Ausspäher umher unter deinem Volke!“ ferner (Sprüche 11, 13): „Es geht als Ausspäher umher, wer Geheimnisse enthüllt.“",
+ "So oft Jemand einen Beweis bringt, hebt man das Urteil auf. Sagte man zu ihm: „alle Beweise, die du hast, bringe von nun ab binnen dreissig Tagen!“ — bringt er sie während der dreissig Tage, so hebt man (das Urteil) auf; (bringt er sie aber) nach dreissig Tagen, so hebt man das Urteil nicht auf. Es sagt R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels: Was kann dieser tun, da er solche während der dreissig Tage nicht gefunden und sie erst nach den dreissig Tagen gefunden hat? Sagte man zu ihm: „bringe Zeugen!“, und er sagte: „ich habe keine Zeugen“ — oder sagte man: „bringe einen Beweis! “, und er sagte: „ich habe keinen Beweis,“ und in späterer Zeit fand er einen Beweis oder Zeugen; so gilt dies nichts. Es sagt R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels: Was kann dieser tun, da er nicht wusste, dass er Zeugen habe, und dann Zeugen findet, oder da er nicht wusste, dass er einen Beweis habe, und dann einen Beweis findet? (Sagte man zu ihm: „bringe Zeugen!“, und er sagte: „ich habe keine Zeugen,“ — oder sagte man: „bringe einen Beweis!“, und er sagte: „ich habe keinen Beweis), als er aber sah, dass er beim Prozesse schuldig gesprochen ward, sagte er: „tretet näher N. und N. und zeuget für mich!“ — oder er zieht dann einen Beweis aus seiner Geldtasche hervor; so gilt dies nichts."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Sowohl Vermögens-Rechtssachen als Lebens-Strafsachen erfordern Ausforschung und Untersuchung, denn es heisst (Lev. 24, 22): „Einerlei Recht soll euch sein.“ Worin sind Vermögens-Rechtssachen von Lebens-Strafsachen verschieden? Vermögens - Rechtssachen (gehören) vor drei, Lebens-Strafsachen vor dreiundzwanzig (Richter). Bei Vermögens-Rechtssachen kann man (die Verhandlung) sowohl (mit Gründen) zur Freisprechung, als auch (mit solchen) zur Verurteilung eröffnen, bei Lebens-Strafsachen dagegen eröffnet man (die Verhandlung mit Gründen) zur Freisprechung, aber nicht (mit solchen) zur Verurteilung. Bei Vermögens-Rechtssachen gibt der Urteilsspruch Eines (Richters) den Ausschlag sowohl zur Freisprechung als zur Verurteilung, bei Lebens-Strafsachen dagegen gibt wohl eine Stimme den Ausschlag zur Freisprechung, zur Verurteilung aber geben nur zwei den Ausschlag. Bei Vermögens-Rechtssachen findet Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens sowohl zu Gunsten als zum Nachteil statt, bei Lebens-Strafsachen darf man das Verfahren nur zur Freisprechung, aber nicht zur Verurteilung wiederaufnehmen. Bei Vermögens-Rechtssachen können Alle sowohl zu Gunsten als zum Nachteil Gründe vorbringen, bei Lebens-Strafsachen können wohl Alle zu Gunsten Gründe vorbringen, aber nicht Alle dürfen Gründe zum Nachteil vorbringen. Bei Vermögens-Rechtssachen kann derjenige, der für Verurteilung befunden hat, wieder für Freisprechung befinden, und wer für Freisprechung befunden hat, kann wieder für Veruteilung befinden, bei Lebens-Strafsachen dagegen kann wohl derjenige, der für Verurteilung befunden hat, wieder für Freisprechung befinden, aber es kann nicht der, welcher einmal für Freisprechung befunden hat, wieder für Verurteilung befinden. Vermögens-Processe kann man bei Tag verhandeln und bei Nacht entscheiden, Lebens-Strafprozesse muss man bei Tag verhandeln und bei Tag entscheiden. Vermögens-Prozesse kann man an demselben Tage sowohl zur Freisprechung als zur Verurteilung entscheiden, Lebens-Strafprozesse kann man bloß zur Freisprechung an demselben Tage entscheiden, zur Verurteilung aber erst am folgenden Tage; deshalb richtet man nicht am Vorabend des Schabbats oder eines Feiertages.",
+ "Bei Urteilen über (Geldsachen) Reinigkeit oder Unreinigkeit lässt man (die Abstimmung) von dem Grössten beginnen, bei Lebens-Strafprocessen von der Seite. Alle sind geeignet bei Vermögens-Prozessen zu richten; aber nicht Alle sind geeignet bei Lebens-Srafprozessen zu richten, sondern nur Priester, Leviten oder solche Israeliten, die ihre Töchter mit Priestern verheiraten dürften.",
+ "Das Synedrion war gleich einer halben runden Tenne, damit sie einander sehen könnten. Zwei Gerichtsschreiber standen vor ihnen, einer zur Rechten und einer zur Linken, und schrieben die Reden der Freisprechenden und die Reden der Verurteilenden nieder. R. Jehuda sagt: drei (Schreiber standen dort), einer schrieb die Reden der Freisprechenden, der andre die Reden der Verurteilenden und der dritte die Reden der Freisprechenden und die Reden der Verurteilenden (zugleich).",
+ "Drei Reihen Weisen-Jünger sassen vor ihnen, jeder Einzelne kannte seinen Platz. War es nötig, Einen zu ordinieren, so ordinierte man einen aus der ersten Reihe, einer aus der zweiten Reihe kam dann in die erste und einer aus der dritten in die zweite, dann wählte man einen aus der Gemeinde und setzte ihn in die dritte Reihe; er sass aber nicht an dem Platze des Frühem, sondern an dem ihm gebührenden Platze.",
+ "In welcher Weise machte man die Zeugen in Lebens-Strafsachen ängstlich? Man führte sie herein und machte ihnen Angst (mit den Worten): „Vielleicht sprechet ihr aus Vermutung, vom Hörensagen, oder (ihr denket): wir haben es aus dem Munde eines andern Zeugen oder aus dem Munde eines glaubwürdigen Mannes gehört, oder vielleicht wisset ihr nicht, dass wir euch später durch Ausforschung und Untersuchung prüfen werden? Wisset, dass Lebenssachen nicht wie Geldsachen sind, bei Geldsachen kann der Mensch das Geld wiedergeben, und es wird ihm eine Sühne, aber bei Lebenssachen haftet an ihm des Hingerichteten Blut und das Blut seiner (möglichen) Nachkommen bis an der Welt Ende, denn so finden wir bei Kajin der seinen Bruder erschlug, da heisst es (Gen. 4, 10): „Das mehrfache Blut deines Bruders schreit.“ Es heisst nicht: „das Blut deines Bruders“, sondern: „das mehrfache Blut deines Bruders,“ nämlich sein Blut und das Blut seiner (möglichen) Nachkommen. [Eine andere Erklärung: (deshalb steht:) „das mehrfache Blut“, weil sein Blut hingeworfen war auf Hölzern und Steinen. ] Deshalb ist nur ein einziger Mensch erschaffen worden, um dich zu lehren, dass wenn einer eine Person (von Israel) vernichtet, es ihm die Schrift anrechnet, als hätte er eine ganze Welt vernichtet, und wenn einer eine Person (von Israel) erhält, es ihm die Schrift anrechnet, als hätte er eine ganze Welt erhalten. [Ferner (geschah dies) wegen des Friedens der Welt, damit nicht ein Mensch zum andern sage: „mein Ahn war grösser als dein Ahn!“; auch damit die Minim nicht sagen: „es gibt mehrere Mächte im Himmel“; endlich um die Grösse des Königs aller Könige, des Heiligen, gebenedeit sei Er, zu verkünden, denn wenn ein Mensch viele Münzen mit Einem Stempel prägt, sind sie alle einander gleich, aber der König aller Könige, der Heilige, gebenedeit sei Er, hat jeden Menschen mit dem Stempel des ersten Menschen ausgeprägt, und doch ist nicht Einer dem andern gleich. Daher ist auch jeder Einzelne verpflichtet zu sagen: „meinetwegen ist die Welt erschaffen worden. “] Vielleicht aber werdet ihr sagen: „was soll uns diese Not? “ Fürwahr es heisst schon in der Schrift (Lev. 5,1) „Er ist ein Zeuge, er hat es gesehen oder weiss es, wenn er es nicht anzeigt, so trägt er seine Schuld. Vielleicht werdet ihr sagen: „was sollen wir das Blut dieses Menschen verschulden ? Fürwahr es heisst schon in der Schrift (Sprüche 11,10): „Wenn die Frevler untergehen, ist Jubel “."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Man prüfte sie durch (folgende) sieben Untersuchungsfragen: In welcher Jahrwoche? Im wievielten Jahre? In welchem Monate? Am wievielten des Monats? An welchem Tage? In welcher Stunde? An welchem Orte? R. Jose sagt: (Man fragte nur:) An welchem Tage? In welcher Stunde? An welchem Orte? — Ferner fragte man: Kennt ihr ihn? Habt ihr ihn gewarnt? Wenn Einer Götzendienst getrieben (fragte man ferner:) Wem hat er gedient? Womit hat er gedient?",
+ "Jemehr einer prüft, desto lobenswerter ist er. Einst geschah es, dass der Sohn Sakkai’s über die Stiele der Feigen ausfragte. Was ist der Unterschied zwischen den Untersuchungsfragen; und (andern) Prüfungsfragen? Bei den Untersuchungsfragen ist, wenn Einer sagt: „ich weiss nicht“, das ganze Zeugnis ungültig; bei den (andern) Prüfungsfragen ist, wenn auch Einer sagt: „ich weiss nicht“, ja selbst wenn beide sagen: „wir wissen nicht“, das Zeugnis dennoch gültig. Sowohl bei den Untersuchungen als bei den (andern) Prüfungen ist, wenn sie einander widersprechen, das Zeugnis ungültig.",
+ "Sagt da einer: „am zweiten des Monats“, und der andere sagt: „am dritten des Monats“, so ist ihr Zeugnis gültig; denn jener wusste, dass der Monat ein Schaltmonat war, und dieser wusste nicht, dass der Monat ein Schaltmonat war. Sagt aber einer: „am dritten“, und der andere sagt: „am fünften“, so ist ihr Zeugnis ungültig. Sagt einer: „in der zweiten Stunde“, und der andere sagt: „in der dritten Stunde“, so ist ihr Zeugnis giftig, Sagt einer: „in der dritten“, und der andere sagt: „in der fünften, so ist ihr Zeugnis ungiftig. R. Jehuda sagt: Es ist gültig. Sagt einer: „in der fünften“, und der andere sagt: „in der siebenten“, so ist ihr Zeugnis ungültig, denn in der fünften ist die Sonne im Osten, und in der siebenten ist die Sonne im Westen.",
+ "Hierauf führt man den zweiten herein und prüft ihn. Wenn ihre Worte übereinstimmend gefunden werden, beginnt man (die Verhandlung) mit (Gründen zur) Rechtfertigung. Sagt einer von den Zeugen: „ich habe Gründe zu seiner Rechtfertigung vorzubringen“, oder (sagt) einer von den Jüngern: „ich habe Gründe zu seiner Verurteilung vorzubringen“, so gebietet man ihm zu schweigen. Sagt einer von den Jüngern: „ich habe Gründe zu seiner Rechtfertigung vorzubringen“, so bringen sie ihn herauf und setzen ihn zwischen sich, und er kam den ganzen Tag nicht von dort hinunter; — wenn an seinen Worten etwas Erhebliches ist, so hört man auf ihn. — Auch wenn der Angeklagte selbst sagt: „ich habe Gründe zu meiner eigenen Rechtfertigung vorzubringen“, so hört man auf ihn; nur muss etwas Erhebliches an seinen Worten sein.",
+ "Wenn sie für ihn die Rechtfertigung fanden, so entliessen sie ihn; wo nicht, so verschoben sie sein Urteil bis auf morgen. Inzwischen kamen sie paarweise zusammen, sie essen wenig und trinken keinen Wein den ganzen Tag, sie diskutieren die ganze Nacht, und am andern Morgen kommen sie frühzeitig in das Gerichtshaus. Der Rechtfertigende sagt: „ich habe ihn für gerecht erklärt, und ich bleibe dabei, ihn für gerecht zu erklären!“ —, und der Verdammende sagt: „ich habe ihn verdammt, und ich bleibe dabei, ihn zu verdammen!“. — Wer für Verdammung befunden hat, kann wieder für Freisprechung befinden; wer aber für Freisprechung befunden hat, kann nicht wieder für Verdammung befinden. Haben sie sich in Etwas geirrt, so haben die zwei, Gerichtsschreiber sie zu erinnern. Wenn sie für ihn die Rechtfertigung finden, so entlassen sie ihn; wo nicht, so beginnen sie abzustimmen. Erklären ihn zwölf für gerecht und eilt für schuldig, so ist er freigesprochen; erklären ihn zwölf für schuldig und elf für gerecht, [sogar wenn ihn elf für gerecht und elf für schuldig erklären, und einer sagt: „ich weiss nicht“,] ja sogar wenn ihn zweiundzwanzig für gerecht oder für schuldig erklären, und einer sagt: „ich weiss nicht!“, so muss man die (Zahl der) Richter vermehren. Bis auf wie viel vermehrt man sie? Immer um zwei bis auf einundsiebzig. Erklären ihn dann sechsunddreissig für gerecht und fünfunddreissig für schuldig, so ist er freigesprochen. Erklären ihn aber sechsunddreissig für schuldig und fünfunddreissig für gerecht, so debattieren die Einen mit den Andern so lange, bis einem der Verurteiler die Worte der Freisprechenden ein leuchten."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Sobald das Urteil gesprochen ist, führt man ihn hinaus zum Steinigen. Das Steinigungshaus war draussen (fern) vom Gerichtshause, denn es heisst (Lev. 24, 14): „Führe den Lästerer hinaus!“ Einer stand am Eingange des Gerichtshauses mit einem Tuche in der Hand, und ein anderer Mann sass zu Pferde fern von ihm, so dass er jenen sehen kann. Sagt einer: „ich habe etwas zu seiner Rechtfertigung vorzubringen“, so schwenkt jener mit dem Tuche, und der Reiter rennt fort und heisst ihn stehen bleiben. Bis das Gericht die Rechtfertigungsgründe geprüft hat, Auch wenn er selbst sagt: „ich habe Etwas zu meiner Rechtfertigung vorzubringen“, führt man ihn zurück, sogar vier- bis fünfmal; nur muss an seinen Worten etwas Erhebliches sein. Findet man für ihn die Rechtfertigung, so entlässt man ihn, wo nicht, so wird er zur Steinigung ausgeführt. Ein Ausrufer geht vor ihm her (rufend): „Der Mann N., Sohn des N., wird zur Steinigung ausgeführt, weil er das und das Verbrechen begangen hat, N. und N. sind Zeugen; wer etwas zu seiner Rechtfertigung weiss, der komme und bringe es vor!“",
+ "Wenn er vom Steinigungshause ungefähr zehn Ellen entfernt ist, sagt man zu ihm: Lege dein Sündenbekenntnis ab!; denn so gehört es sich, dass alle Hingerichteten vorher ihre Sünden bekennen, da Jeder, der seine Sünde bekennt, Teil hat an der zukünftigen Welt. “ So finden wir auch bei ‘Achan, dass Josua zu ihm sagte (Jos. 7, 19): „Mein Sohn, tue doch dem Ewigen dem Gott Israel’s Ehre an und gib ihm ein Bekenntnis u. s. w. Und ‘Achan antwortete dem Josua und sprach: Fürwahr ich habe gesündigt, so und so u. s. w.“ — Woher wissen wir, dass sein Bekenntnis ihn sühnte? Es heisst (das. 25): „Josua sprach: Wie hast du uns verderbt! so verderbe dich der Ewige an diesem Tage!“ (Dies bedeutet:) An diesem Tage bist du verderbt, du bist aber nicht verderbt in der zukünftigen Welt. Wenn er nicht ein Bekenntnis abzulegen weiss, sagt man zu ihm: „Sprich: mein Tod sei eine Sühne wegen aller meiner Sünden!“ R. Jehuda sagt: Wenn er weiss, dass wider ihn falsches Zeugnis abgelegt worden ist, so kann er sagen: „mein Tod sei eine Sühne wegen aller meiner Sünden, mit Ausnahme dieser Sünde! “ Da sagten sie zu ihm: Wenn so (gesagt werden dürfte), so würde Jeder so sagen, um sich als unschuldig hinzustellen.",
+ "Wenn er vom Steinigungshause vier Ellen entfernt ist, zieht man ihm die Kleider aus; den Mann bedeckt man vorn, das Weib vorn und hinten. Dies die Worte R. Jehuda’s. Die Weisen aber sagen: Der Mann wird nackt gesteinigt, das Weib aber wird nicht nackt gesteinigt",
+ "Das Steinigungshaus hat zwei Mannshöhen. Einer der Zeugen stösst ihn auf die Hüften, so dass er auf das Herz fällt; dann wendet er ihn um, (legt ihn) auf die Hüften. Ist er schon tot so ist der Pflicht genügt, wo nicht, so nimmt der zweite den Stein und wirft ihn ihm auf’s Herz; ist er dann tot, so ist der Pflicht genügt, wo nicht, so geschieht seine Steinigung durch ganz Israel, denn es heisst (Deut. 17, 7): „Die Hand der Zeugen sei zuerst an ihm, ihn zu töten, und die Hand des ganzen Volkes zuletzt.“ Alle Gesteinigten werden gehenkt. Dies die Worte R. Eliësers. Die Weisen aber sagen: Nur der Gotteslästerer und der Götzendiener werden gehenkt. Einen Mann henkt man mit dem Gesichte gegen das Volk, das Weib aber mit dem Gesichte gegen das Holz. Dies die Worte R. Eliésers. Die Weisen aber sagen: Nur der Mann wird gehenkt, das Weib aber wird nicht gehenkt. Da sagte R. Eliéser zu ihnen: Simon, Sohn Schetach’s, hat doch in Askelon Weiber hängen lassen? Da sagten sie zu ihm: Er hat achtzig Weiber hängen lassen, und man darf doch nicht zwei an Einem Tage richten! Auf welche Weise henkt man ihn? Man senkt einen Balken in die Erde, von welchem ein Querholz ausgeht; man bringt dann die beiden Hände nahe aneinander und hängt ihn auf. R. Jose sagt: Der Balken war an die Wand gelehnt, und man henkte ihn (daran), wie es die Schlächter machen. Man löst ihn sogleich ab; wenn man ihn (hängend) über Nacht lässt, übertritt man ein Verbot, denn es heisst (Deut. 21, 23): „Seine Leiche soll nicht übernachten an dem Holze, sondern begraben sollst du ihn an demselben Tage, denn eine Entwürdigung Gottes ist ein Gehenkter u. s. w.,“ das will sagen, (man würde sprechen:) „Warum wurde dieser gehenkt? Weil er Gott gelästert hat!, wodurch der Name Gottes entweiht würde.",
+ "Es sagt R. Meïr: Wenn der Mensch sich grämt, wie drückt er sich aus: „Mein Kopf ist mir schwer, mein Arm ist mir schwer!“ Wenn Gott sich so wegen des Blutes der Frevler grämt, dass es vergossen wird, wie viel mehr wegen des Blutes der Gerechten. — Nicht bloß hierbei, sondern Jeder, der seinen Toten über Nacht liegen lässt, übertritt ein Verbot; lässt man ihn dessen Ehre wegen über Nacht liegen, um ihm einen Sarg und Totenkleider zu bringen, so übertritt man nicht (das Verbot). Man begrub ihn nicht in der Grabstätte seiner Väter, sondern das Gericht hatte zwei Begräbnisplätze eingerichtet, Einen für die durchs Schwert Hingerichteten und die Erdrosselten und Einen für die Gesteinigten und Verbrannten.",
+ "Nachdem das Fleisch verwest ist, liest man die Gebeine zusammen und begräbt sie an ihrem Orte. Die Verwandten kommen und bieten den Richtern und den Zeugen den Friedensgruss, um gleichsam zu sagen: „wir hegen im Herzen keinen Groll gegen euch, denn ihr habt nach dem wahren Rechte gerichtet!“ Sie hielten keine Trauer; doch verhielten sie sich wie Leidtragende, denn das Leidtragen geschieht nur im Herzen."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Viererlei Todesstrafen sind dem Gerichte übergeben: Steinigung, Verbrennen, Enthauptung und Erdrosselung. R. Simon sagt: Verbrennen, Steinigung, Erdrosselung und Enthauptung. Obiges ist das gesetzliche Verfahren beim Steinigen.",
+ "Das gesetzliche Verfahren beim Verbrennen ist folgendes: Man versenkt ihn in Mist bis an seine Kniee, dann legt man ein hartes Tuch in ein weiches und wickelt es ihm um den Hals; Einer zieht (ein Ende) an sich, und der andere zieht (das andere) an sich, bis er den Mund aufsperrt; man macht das Blei heiss und giesst es ihm in den Mund, so dass es ihm ins Innere hinuntergeht und die Eingeweide verbrennt. R. Jehuda sagt: Wenn er da unter ihren Händen stürbe, so würde man an ihm die gesetzliche Vorschrift des Verbrennens nicht vollziehen! Man öffnet vielmehr seinen Mund mit einer Zange gewaltsam, macht das Blei heiss und giesst es ihm in den Mund, so dass es ihm ins Innere hinuntergeht und die Eingeweide verbrennt. Es sagt R. Elieser, Sohn Zadok’s: Einst hatte eines Priesters Tochter Unzucht getrieben, und man umgab sie mit Rebenbündeln und verbrannte sie. Da sprachen sie zu ihm: (Dies geschah,) weil das Gericht von jener Zeit nicht gesetzkundig gewesen.",
+ "Das gesetzliche Verfahren beim Enthaupten ist folgendes: Man haut ihm den Kopf mit dem Schwerte ab, wie es die Regierung macht. R. Jehuda sagt: dies wäre eine Schändung (für ihn); man legt vielmehr seinen Kopf auf einen Block und haut ihn mit einem Beile ab. Da sagten sie zu ihm: Es gibt keine schändlichere Todesart als diese. Das gesetzliche Verfahren beim Erdrosseln ist folgendes: Man versenkt ihn in Mist bis an die Kniee, legt ein hartes Tuch in ein weiches und wickelt es ihm um den Hals; Einer zieht (ein Ende) an sich, und der andere zieht (das andere) an sich, bis ihm das Leben ausgeht.",
+ "Folgende werden gesteinigt: Wer seiner Mutter, dem Weibe seines Vaters, seiner Schwiegertochter, einem Manne oder einem Vieh beiwohnt, ein Weib, das Vieh über sich kommen lässt, der Gotteslästerer, der Götzendiener, wer von seinem Samen dem Molech hingibt, der Totenbeschwörer, der Wahrsager, wer den Schabbat entweiht, wer seinem Vater oder seiner Mutter flucht, wer einem verlobten Mädchen beiwohnt, wer (zum Götzendienst), beredet, wer (dazu eine ganze Stadt) verleitet, der Zauberer und der unbändige und widerspenstige Sohn. Wer seiner Mutter (aus Versehen) beigewohnt hat, ist ihretwegen (zwei Sündopfer) schuldig, sofern es seine Mutter und seines Vaters Weib ist. R. Jehuda sagt: Er ist bloß (Ein Sündopfer) schuldig, sofern es seine Mutter ist. Wer seines Vaters Weibe beigewohnt hat, ist ihretwegen (zwei Sündopfer) schuldig, weil es seines Vaters Weib und weil es ein Eheweib ist. (Er ist schuldig), mag dies bei Lebzeiten des Vaters, oder nach dessen Tode, nach der Verlobung oder nach der Heirat geschehen sein. Wer seiner Schwiegertochter beigewohnt hat, ist ihretwegen (zwei Sündopfer) schuldig, weil sie seine Schwiegertochter und zugleich ein Eheweib ist. (Er ist schuldig), mag dies bei Lebzeiten des Sohnes, oder nach dessen Tode, nach der Verlobung oder nach der Heirat geschehen sein. „Wenn jemand einem Manne oder einem Viehe beiwohnt oder wenn ein Weib Vieh über sich kommen lässt,“ (findet Steinigung statt). Wenn der Mensch gesündigt hat, was hat das Vieh verschuldet? Nur weil dem Menschen durch dasselbe ein Anstoss gekommen ist, deshalb sagt die Schrift, dass es gesteinigt werde. Eine andere Erklärung: Damit man nicht, wenn das Vieh auf dem Markte vorbeigeht, sage: das ist es, um welches der und der gesteinigt wurde.",
+ "Der Gotteslästerer ist nur schuldig, wenn er den Namen (Gottes) deutlich ausspricht. Es sagt R. Josua, Sohn Korcha’s: An allen Tagen verhört man die Zeugen mit einer umschreibenden Benennung: „Es schlage Josah den Josah;“ nachdem aber die Verhandlung vollendet ist, fällt man nicht auf die umschreibende Benennung hin das Todesurteil, sondern man lässt Jedermann hinausgehen und befragt den grössten der Zeugen, indem man zu ihm sagt: „Sprich, was du gehört hast, deutlich aus!“, und er sagt es; die Richter erheben sich dabei und zerreissen ihre Kleider, die sie nie wieder zunähen dürfen; der zweite (Zeuge) sagt dann: „ich habe ebenso wie dieser gehört“, und der dritte sagt: „ich ebenso wie dieser“.",
+ "„Der Götzendiener.“ Es ist einerlei, ob er dient, Opfer schlachtet, räuchert, Trankopfer spendet, sich niederwirft, ihn für einen Gott annimmt oder zu ihm sagt: „Du bist mein Gott!“. Wer aber den Götzen umarmt, küsst, (vor ihm) fegt spritzt, (ihn) badet, salbt, bekleidet oder beschuht, Übertritt bloß ein Verbot. Wer in seinem Namen etwas angelobt oder beschwört, übertritt ein Verbot. Wenn Einer sich vor dem Ba‘al Pe‘or entleert, so ist dies sein Dienst. Wenn Einer einen Stein dem Merkulis zuwirft, so ist dies sein Dienst.",
+ "Wer von seinem Samen dem Molech gibt, ist nur dann schuldig, wenn er (sein Kind) dem Molech übergibt und durchs Feuer führt. Hat er es dem Molech übergeben und nicht durchs Feuer geführt, oder hat er es durchs Feuer geführt und nicht dem Molech übergeben, so ist er nicht schuldig; sondern nur, wenn er es dem Molech übergeben und durchs Feuer geführt hat. — „Der Totenbeschwörer“, das ist der Python, der aus seinen Achselhöhlen reden lässt; „der Wahrsager“ ist der, welcher aus seinem Munde reden lässt; — diese sind mit Steinigung (zu bestrafen), und wer sie befragt, übertritt eine Warnung.",
+ "„Wer den Schabbat entweiht“, nämlich durch etwas, wobei man wegen vorsätzlicher Tat mit Ausrottung bestraft und wegen irrtümlicher Tat ein Sündopfer schuldig ist. Wer seinem Vater oder seiner Mutter flucht, ist nur dann schuldig, wenn er ihnen mit einem Gottesnamen flucht. Flucht er ihnen mit einem Beinamen, so erklärt ihn R. Meir für schuldig; die Weisen aber sprechen ihn frei.",
+ "Wer einem verlobten Mädchen beiwohnt, ist nur dann schuldig, wenn sie mannbar geworden, noch Jungfrau, verlobt und noch im Hause ihres Vaters ist. Haben ihr zwei beigewohnt, so wird der erste mit Steinigung und der zweite mit Erdrosselung bestraft.",
+ "„ Wer (zum Götzendienst) beredet,“ — darunter ist ein Laie verstauden, und zwar, wenn er einen Privatmann beredet. Sagt er zu Jemand: „es ist eine Gottheit an dem und dem Orte, die so isst, so trinkt, so Gutes und so Böses erteilt, — bei allen Todesschuldigen, die in der Thora vorkommen, legt man keinen Hinterhalt, ausser bei diesem, — sagt er es zu Zweien und sie sind seine Zeugen, so bringen sie ihn vor Gericht, und man steinigt ihn. Sagt er es nur zu Einem, so sage dieser: „ich habe Freunde, die auch daran Gefallen hätten;“ ist Jener listig und will vor ihnen nicht reden, so stellt man ihm Zeugen im Hinterhalt hinter einer Mauer. Dieser sage nun zu ihm: „wiederhole, was du mir (jüngst) gesagt hast, da wir allein sind;“ wiederholt es Jener, so sage er zu ihm: „wie können wir unsern himmlischen Gott verlassen und Holz und Stein anbeten gehen?!“, wenn er nun davon absteht, so ist es gut; sagt er aber: „so ist unsere Schuldigkeit und so frommt es uns!“, so führen die hinter der Mauer Stehenden ihn vor Gericht, und man steinigt ihn. Wenn Jemand sagt: „ich will (dem Götzen) dienen,“ — „ich will hingehen und (ihm)dienen,“ — „lasst uns hingehen und (ihm) dienen“, — „ich will (ihm)opfern, — „ich will hingehen und (ihm) opfern,“ — „lasst uns hingehen und (ihm) opfern,“ — „ich will(ihm) räuchern“, — „ich will hingehen und(ihm)räuchern,“—„lasst uns hingehen und (ihm) räuchern“, „ich will (ihm) Trankopfer spenden“ — „ich will hingehen und (ihm) Trankopfer spenden,“ — „lasst uns hingehen und (ihm) Trankopfer spenden,“ — „ich will mich (vor ihm) niederwerfen,“ — „ich will hingehen und mich (vor ihm) niederwerfen,“ — lasst uns hingehen und uns (vor ihm) niederwerfen;“ — (so ist er schuldig). — „Wer (zum Götzendienst) verleitet;“ das ist der, welcher sagt: „lasst uns gehen und Götzendienst treiben.“",
+ "„Der Zauberer“; — wer eine Tat verübt, ist schuldig, aber nicht wer bloß die Augen täuscht. R. Akiba sagt im Namen des R. Josua: Von Zweien, die Gurken lesen, kann ein Lesender frei sein, während der andere Lesende schuldig ist; wer nämlich eine Tat verübt, ist schuldig; wer aber bloß die Augen täuscht, ist frei."
+ ],
+ [
+ "„Der unbändige und widerspenstige Sohn.“ Von wann ab kann er (als) ein unbändiger und widerspenstiger Sohn(verurteilt) werden? Von der Zeit an, dass er zwei Haare gebracht, bis ringsherum ein Bart gewachsen ist. (Damit ist das untere nicht das obere Haar gemeint, nur haben sich die Weisen eines reinen Ausdrucks bedient). Denn es heisst (Deut. 21, 18): „Wenn jemand einen Sohn hat;“ (dies sagt:) „einen Sohn und nicht eine Tochter, einen Sohn und nicht ein Mann; der Unmündige ist aber frei, da er noch nicht in die Gesetzpflichten eingetreten ist.",
+ ". Wann ist er schuldig? Wenn er ein Tritemor Fleisch gegessen und einen halben Log italischen Wein getrunken hat. R. Jose sagt: Eine Mine Fleisch und ein Log Wein. Hat er bei einem gebotenen Gastmahle gegessen, hat er bei der Intercalation des Monats gegessen, hat er zweiten Zehnt zu Jerusalem gegessen, hat er Aas, Zerrissenes, Geschmeiss und Gewürm gegessen, [hat er Unverzehntetes, oder ersten Zehnt, dessen Hebe noch nicht abgesondert war, oder zweiten Zehnt oder Geheiligtes, die nicht ausgelöst waren, gegessen], hat er überhaupt durch sein Essen ein Gebot oder eine Übertretung ausgeübt, hat er allerlei Speisen, nur nicht Fleisch gegessen, hat er allerlei Getränke, nur nicht Wein getrunken; so wird er nicht als unbändiger und widerspenstiger Sohn gerichtet, sondern nur, wenn er Fleisch gegessen und Wein getrunken hat, denn es heisst (Deut. 21, 20): „Ein Schlemmer und ein Säufer“; und wenn es auch keinen Beweis dafür gibt, so ist doch eine Andeutung dafür in dem Verse (Spr. 23,20): „Sei nicht unter den Weinsäufern und Fleischfressern“.",
+ "Hat er seinen Abater bestohlen und es im Gebiete seines Vaters verzehrt, oder hat er Andere bestohlen und es im Gebiete Anderer verzehrt, oder hat er Andere bestohlen und es im Gebiete seines Vaters verzehrt, so wird er nicht als unbändiger und widerspenstiger Sohn verurteilt, sondern nur, wenn er seinen Vater bestiehlt und es im Gebiete anderer verzehrt. R. Jose, Sohn des R. Jehuda, sagt: Nur wenn er seinen Vater und seine Mutter bestiehlt.",
+ "Will der Vater (ihn anklagen), aber die Mutter will nicht; oder will der Vater nicht und die Mutter will es, so wird er nicht als unbändiger und widerspenstiger Sohn verurteilt, sondern nur, wenn beide es wollen. R. Jehuda sagt: Wenn die Mutter nicht für den Vater geeignet ist, so wird er nicht als unbändiger und widerspenstiger Sohn verurteilt. 1st Einer von ihnen einhändig, lahm, stumm, blind oder taub, so wird er nicht als unbändiger und widerspenstiger Sohn verurteilt, denn es heisst (Deut. 21,19 — 20): „Es sollen sein Vater und seine Mutter ihn ergreifen“, sie seien also nicht einhändig, „ihn hinausführen“, also nicht lahm, „und sprechen“, also nicht stumm, „dieser unser Sohn,“ also nicht blind, „gehorcht nicht unserer Stimme“, also nicht taub. Sie sollen ihn warnen, vor Dreien ihn geisseln lassen. Ist er dann wieder ausgeartet, so wird er von dreiundzwanzig gerichtet, und er wird nur dann gesteinigt, wenn die drei ersten zugegen sind, denn es heisst (Deut. 21, 20): „Dieser unser Sohn“, also dieser, der vor euch gegeisselt worden ist. Entflieht er, bevor das Urteil über ihn gefällt worden, und hernach ist ihm unten ringsherum das Haar gewachsen, so ist er frei. Ist er aber entflohen, nachdem das Urteil über ihn gefällt war, so bleibt er schuldig, auch wenn ihm nachher unten ringsherum das Haargewachsen ist.",
+ "Der unbändige und widerspenstige Sohn wird verurteilt um seiner Zukunft willen. Die Thora sagt: Er sterbe als Gerechter, damit er nicht als Schuldiger sterbe, denn der Tod der Frevler ist ihnen nützlich und der Welt nützlich, der der Gerechten ist ihnen nachteilig und der Welt nachteilig. Wein und Schlaf der Frevler ist ihnen nützlich und der Welt nützlich, der der Gerechten aber ist ihnen nachteilig und der Weltnachteilig. Getrenntheit der Frevler ist ihnen nützlich und der Welt nützlich, die der Gerechten aber ist ihnen nachteilig und der Welt nachteilig. Vereinigung der Frevler ist ihnen nachteilig und der Welt nachteilig, die der Gerechten aber ist ihnen nützlich und der Welt nützlich. Ruhe der Frevler ist ihnen nachteilig und der Welt nachteilig, die der Gerechten aber ist ihnen nützlich und der Welt nützlich.",
+ "Wer beim Einbruch eindringt, wird um seiner Zukunft willen gerichtet. War einer beim Einbruch eingedrungen und hat dabei ein Fass zerbrochen, so ist er, wenn seinetwegen Blutschuld ist, Ersatz schuldig, ist aber seinetwegen keine Blutschuld, so ist er frei.",
+ "Folgende darf man selbst durch ihr Leben retten: Wer seinen Nächsten verfolgt, um ihn umzubringen, wer eine Mannsperson oder ein verlobtes Mädchen verfolgt. Wer aber einem Viehe nachläuft, wer den Schabbat entweihen oder Götzendienst treiben will, — diese darf man nicht durch ihr Leben retten."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Folgende werden verbrannt: Wer einer Frau und ihrer Tochter beiwohnt und die Tochter eines Priesters, die Unzucht getrieben hat. Unter „einer Fran und ihrer Tochter “ sind begriffen: Seine Tochter, seiner Tochter Tochter, seines Sohnes Tochter, seiner Frau Tochter, ihrer Tochter Tochter und ihres Sohnes Tochter; (seine Schwiegermutter, die Mutter seiner Schwiegermutter und die Mutter seines Schwiegervaters. — Folgende werden enthauptet: Der Mörder und die Einwohner einer verderbten Stadt. Ein Mörder, der seinen Nächsten mit einem Schwerte oder mit einem Eisen geschlagen oder ihn ins Wasser oder ins Feuer so eingedrückt hat, dass er von da nicht herauskommen kann, und er ist gestorben, — der ist schuldig. Hat er ihn ins Wasser oder ins Feuer hineingestossen, doch so dass er von da noch herauskommen konnte, und er ist gestorben, — so ist er frei. Hat er einen Hund auf ihn gehetzt, hat er eine Schlange auf ihn gehetzt, so ist er frei. Hat er ihn von der Schlange beissen lassen, so erklärt ihn R. Jehuda für schuldig, die Weisen aber erklären ihn für frei. Schlägt Jemand seinen Nächsten, sei es mit einem Steine, sei es mit der Faust, und man schätzt ihn, dass er sterben müsse, es wird ihm aber leichter, als ihm (vorher) war, und hernach wird es ihm wieder schwerer und er stirbt, so ist er schuldig. R. Nechemja sagt: Er ist frei, denn die Sache ist wohlbegründet.",
+ "Beabsichtigte er, ein Tier zu töten, und er tötete einen Menschen; (beabsichtigte er), einen Heiden (zu töten), und er tötete einen Israeliten; (beabsichtigte er), eine Frühgeburt (zu töten), und er tötete ein lebensfähiges Kind, so ist er frei. Beabsichtigte er, Jemand auf seine Lenden zu schlagen, und es war nicht ausreichend, ihn auf seinen Lenden zu töten, es traf aber das Herz, und es war ausreichend, ihn auf seinem Herzen zu töten, und er starb, so ist er frei. Beabsichtigte er, ihn auf sein Herz zu schlagen, und es war ausreichend, ihn auf seinem Herzen zu töten, es traf aber die Lenden, und es war nicht ausreichend, ihn auf seinen Lenden zu töten, und er starb, so ist er frei. Beabsichtigte er, einen Grossen zu schlagen, und es war nicht ausreichend, den Grossen zu töten, es traf aber einen Kleinen, und es war ausreichend, einen Kleinen zu töten, und er starb, so ist er frei. Beabsichtigte er, einen Kleinen zu schlagen, und es war ausreichend, den Kleinen zu töten, es traf aber einen Grossen, und es war nicht ausreichend, den Grossen zu töten, und er starb, so ist er frei. Beabsichtigte er dagegen, ihn auf seine Lenden zu schlagen, und es war ausreichend, ihn auf seinen Lenden zu töten, es traf aber das Herz, und er starb, so ist er schuldig. Beabsichtigte er, einen Grossen zu schlagen, und es war ausreichend, den Grossen zu töten, es traf aber einen Kleinen, und er starb, so ist er schuldig. R. Simon sagt: Selbst wenn er beabsichtigte, diesen zu erschlagen, und er erschlug einen Anderen, ist er frei.",
+ "Wenn ein Mörder unter andern vermengt ist, so sind alle frei. R. Jehuda sagt: Man bringt sie in das Gefängnis. Alle des Todes Schuldigen, die mit einander vermengt worden sind, werden mit der leichteren Todesart bestraft. Sind die zu Steinigenden mit den zu Verbrennenden vermengt, so sagt R. Simon: Sie werden mit Steinigung bestraft, denn das Verbrennen ist schärfer. Die Weisen aber sagen: Sie werden mit Verbrennen bestraft, denn die Steinigung ist schärfer. Da sagte R. Simon zu ihnen: Wenn das Verbrennen nicht schärfer wäre, so würde es nicht für eines Priesters Tochter, die Unzucht getrieben hat, bestimmt worden sein! Da sagten sie zu ihm: Wenn das Steinigen nicht schärfer wäre, so würde es nicht für den Gotteslästerer und den Götzendiener bestimmt worden sein. Sind die zu enthauptenden (Verbrecher) mit den zu erdrosselnden vermengt, so sagt R. Simon: (Sie werden) mit dem Schwerte (hingerichtet). Die Weisen aber sagen: Durch Erdrosselung.",
+ "Wer zwei gerichtliche Todesstrafen schuldig geworden ist, wird mit der schärfern (Todesstrafe) belegt. Hat Jemand ein Verbrechen begangen, wodurch er zwei Todesstrafen schuldig geworden ist, so wird er mit der schärferen bestraft. R. Jose sagt: Er wird gemäss der Verpflichtung, die ihm zuerst obgelegen hat, bestraft.",
+ "Wenn Einer die Geisselstrafe erlitten hat und sie an ihm wiederholt worden ist, so lässt ihn das Gericht ins Gefängnis sperren, und man gibt ihm Gerste zu essen, bis ihm der Bauch platzt. Wenn Jemand einen Menschen ohne Zeugen umgebracht hat, so sperrt man ihn ins Gefängnis und gibt ihm notdürftig Brot und knapp Wasser.",
+ "Wenn jemand die Opferschale stiehlt, mit dem Kosem flucht, oder einer Römerin beiwohnt, so können Eiferer ihn niederstossen. Wenn ein Priester in Unreinigkeit den Dienst verrichtet, so führen ihn seine Brüder, die (andern) Priester, nicht zu Gerichte, sondern die Priester-Jünglinge führen ihn aus dem Vorhofe hinaus und zerschmettern ihm mit Holzscheiten das Gehirn. Wenn ein Nichtpriester im Heiligtum den Dienst verrichtet, so sagt R. Akiba: (Er wird) mit Erdrosselung (bestraft). Die Weisen aber sagen: (Er erleidet den Tod) durch Gottes Hand."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Ganz Israel hat Anteil an der zukünftigen Welt, denn es heisst (Jesaja 60, 21): „Und dein Volk — sie sind alle Gerechte, für ewig werden sie besitzen das Land, ein Zweig meiner Pflanzungen, meiner Hände Werk, zur Verherrlichung. Folgende haben keinen Anteil an der zukünftigen Welt: Wer sagt, die Auferstehung der Toten sei nicht von der Thora herzuleiten, oder, die Thora sei nicht von Gott gegeben, und ein Epikuräer. R. Akiba sagt: Auch wer auswärtige Bücher liest und wer über eine Wunde flüstert und sagt(Ex. 15, 26): „Keine der Krankheiten, die ich auf Mizrajim gelegt, werde ich auf dich legen, denn ich der Ewige bin dein Arzt.“ Abba Saul sagt: Auch wer den Namen (Gottes) mit seinen Buchstaben ausspricht.",
+ "Drei Könige und vier Privatmänner haben keinen Anteil an der zukünftigen Welt. Die drei Könige sind: Jerobeam, Achab und Menascheh. R. Jehuda sagt: Menascheh hat Anteil an der zukünftigen Welt, denn es heisst (2. Chr. 33, 13): „Und er betete zu ihm, und er liess sich von ihm erbitten und erhörte sein Flehen und brachte ihn zurück nach Jerusalem in sein Königreich.” Da sagten sie zu ihm: In sein Königreich hat er ihn zurückgebracht, er hat ihn aber nicht zum Leben der zukünftigen Welt zurückgebracht. Die vier Privatmänner sind: Bileam, Doeg, Achitophel und Gechasi.",
+ "Das Geschlecht (zur Zeit) der Sintflut hat keinen Anteil an der zukünftigen Welt und wird nicht zum Gericht auferstehen, denn es heisst (Gen. 6,3): „Es soll nicht richten mein Geist über den Menschen ewiglich;“ (sie werden also) kein Gericht und keinen Geist (haben). Das Geschlecht (zur Zeit) der Teilung hat keinen Anteil an der zukünftigen Welt, denn es heisst (Gen. 11, 8): „Und der Ewige zerstreute sie von dort über die Fläche der ganzen Erde u. s. w.;“ — „der Ewige zerstreute sie“ — in dieser Welt, — „und von dort zerstreute sie der Ewige“ — in der zukünftigen Welt. Die Einwohner von Sedom haben keinen Anteil an der zukünftigen Welt, denn es heisst (Gen. 13, 13): „Und die Männer von Sedom waren sehr bös und sündhaft gegen den Ewigen;“ — „bös“ — in dieser Welt, — „und sündhaft“ — in der zukünftigen Welt. Sie werden aber zum Gericht auferstehen. R. Nechemja sagt: Weder jene noch diese werden zum Gerichte auferstehen, denn es heisst (Ps. 1, 5): „Darum stehen Frevler nicht im Gerichte, und Sünder nicht in der Gemeinde der Frommen,“ — „darum stehen Frevler nicht im Gerichte,“ — dies (bezieht sich auf) das Geschlecht der Sintflut, — „und Sünder nicht in der Gemeinde der Frommen,“ — das sind die Einwohner von Sedom. Da sagten sie zu ihm: In der Gemeinde der Frommen werden sie nicht stehen, sie werden aber stehen in der Gemeinde der Frevler. Die Kundschafter haben keinen Anteil an der zukünftigen Welt, denn es heisst (Num. 14, 37): „Es starben die Männer, die das üble Gerücht von dem Lande ausgebracht, durch eine Plage vor dem Ewigen,“ — „sie starben,“ — in dieser Welt, — „durch eine Plage,“ — in der zukünftigen Welt. Das Geschlecht (das in) der Wüste (war), hat keinen Anteil an der zukünftigen Welt und wird nicht zum Gerichte auferstehen, denn es heisst (Num. 14, 35): „In dieser Wüste sollen sie daraufgehen und da sollen sie sterben,“ — dies die Worte des R. Akiba. R. Eliéser sagt: Von ihnen heisst es vielmehr (Ps. 50, 5): „Versammelt mir meine Frommen, die meinen Bund schliessen über dem Opfer.” — Die Rotte Korach’s wird nicht wieder heraufkommen, denn es heisst (Num. 16, 33): „Die Erde bedeckte sie,“ — in dieser Welt, — „und sie verschwanden aus der Versammlung,“ — in der zukünftigen Welt; dies die Worte des R. Akiba. R. Elieser sagt: Von ihnen heisst es vielmehr (1. Sam. 2, 6): „der Ewige tötet und macht lebendig, senkt in die Gruft und hebt empor.” — Die zehn Stämme werden niemals wieder zurückkommen, denn (von ihnen) heisst es (Deut. 29, 27): „Er warf sie in ein anderes Land, wie diesen Tag;“ also wie dieser Tag dahin geht und nicht wiederkehrt, so gingen sie auch dahin und kehren nicht wieder; dies die Worte des R. Akiba. R. Elieser sagt: Wie der Tag finster wird und wieder leuchtet, so wird den zehn Stämmen, denen es finster geworden, einst wieder Licht werden.",
+ "Die Bewohner einer verderbten Stadt haben keinen Anteil an der zukünftigen Welt, denn es heisst (Deut. 13, 14): „Es sind Männer, Söhne der Ruchlosigkeit herausgegangen aus deiner Mitte und haben die Bewohner ihrer Stadt verführt.” Sie werden nur getötet, wenn ihre Verführer aus der nämlichen Stadt und vom nämlichen Stamme sind, wenn der grösste Teil der Stadt verführt worden ist und wenn die Verführer Männer sind. Haben Frauen oder Minderjährige sie verführt, oder ward nur der kleinere Teil der Stadt verführt, oder waren die Verführer von anderswo her, so werden sie wie Einzelne behandelt. Es sind ferner bei Jedem zwei Zeugen und Verwarnung nötig. Darin werden die Einzelnen strenger behandelt, als die Mehrheit (einer Stadt), dass Einzelne mit Steinigung (bestraft werden), weshalb ihr Vermögen gerettet wird, die Mehrheit dagegen mit dem Schwerte (getötet wird), weshalb ihr Vermögen vernichtet wird.",
+ "(Es heisst in Deut. 13, 16): „Totschlagen sollst du die Bewohner dieser Stadt u. s. w.“; (dies lehrt:) Eine Eseltreiber- oder Kamelführer-Gesellschaft, die von einem Orte zum andern zieht, kann sie retten. Ferner heisst es (das.): „Banne sie und alles, was darin ist, und ihr Vieh mit der Schärfe des Schwertes.“ Hieraus hat man gefolgert, dass das Vermögen der Gerechten, das darin ist, mit vernichtet wird; was aber ausserhalb der Stadt ist, wird gerettet; das Vermögen der Schuldigen aber muss, sowohl wenn es darin ist als wenn es draussen ist, vernichtet werden.",
+ "Ferner heisst es (das. 17): „Die sämtliche Beute der Stadt sollst du mitten auf ihren Markt zusammentragen u.s.w.“ Hat sie keinen Marktplatz, so macht man ihr einen; ist der Marktplatz ausserhalb der Stadt, so zieht man denselben herein. Ferner heisst es (das.): Verbrenne im Feuer die Stadt und ihre sämtliche Beute, das Ganze dem Ewigen deinem Gotte;“ — „ihre Beute“, aber nicht die Beute Gottes. Hieraus hat man gefolgert: die geheiligten Dinge, die darin sind, sollen ausgelöst werden, die Hebe lässt man verfaulen, der zweite Zehnt und die heiligen Schriften sollen verborgen werden „Das Ganze dem Ewigen deinem Gotte“. — Es sagt R. Simon: Der Heilige, gebenedeit sei er, spricht: Wenn ihr an einer verderbten Stadt Strafgericht übet, so rechne ich es euch so an, als würdet ihr mir ein Ganzopfer darbringen. — „Sie werde ein ewiger Schutthaufen, nicht werde sie wieder aufgebaut; — (dies sagt:) man darf nicht einmal Frucht-und Lustgärten daraus machen; — dies die Worte R. Jose’s, des Galiläers. R. Akiba sagt: „Nicht werde sie wieder aufgebaut“,(das heisst:) wozu sie (erbaut) war, darf sie nicht wieder aufgebaut werden, aber Frucht-und Lustgärten darf man daraus machen. [Ferner heisst es (das. 18)]: „Und nicht soll haften an deiner Hand das Geringste von dem Banne, [auf dass der Ewige zurück kehre von seiner Zornglut];“ — denn so lange die Frevler in der Welt sind, ist Zornglut in der Welt, sobald aber die Frevler von der Welt schwinden, so entweicht die Zornglut von der Welt."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Folgende werden erdrosselt: Wer seinen Vater oder seine Mutter schlägt, wer eine Person aus Israel stiehlt, ein gegen die Entscheidung des (obersten) Gerichtshofes sich auflehnender Gelehrter, ein falscher Prophet, wer im Namen eines fremden Gottes prophezeit, wer einer Ehefrau beiwohnt, die falschen Zeugen wider eine Priesterstochter und wer mit einer solcher Unzucht treibt, wer seinen Vater oder seine Mutter schlägt ist nur dann schuldig, wenn er ihnen eine Wunde beibringt. Darin wird der Flucher strenger behandelt als der Schläger, dass der, welcher (seinen Eltern) nach ihrem Tode flucht, schuldig ist, wer sie aber nach ihrem Tode schlägt, frei ist. Wer eine Person aus Israel stiehlt, ist nur dann schuldig, wenn er dieselbe in sein Gebiet gebracht hat. R. Jehuda sagt: Erst dann wenn er dieselbe in sein Gebiet gebracht und sich ihrer bedient hat, denn es heisst (Deut. 24,7): „und er hat sich seiner als Sklaven bedient und ihn verkauft.“ Wenn Jemand seinen Sohn stiehlt, so erklärt ihn R. Ismael, Sohn des R. Jochanan, Sohn Beroka’s, für schuldig; die Weisen aber erklären ihn für frei. Stiehlt jemand einen, der halb Sklave und halb Freigelassen er ist, so erklärt ihn R. Jehuda für schuldig; die Weisen aber erklären ihn für frei.",
+ "„Ein gegen die Entscheidung des (obersten) Gerichtshofes sich auflehnender Gelehrter.“ — Es heisst (Deut. 17,8ff): „Wenn dir eine Sache unbekannt ist für die Entscheidung u. s. w.„ Drei Gerichtshöfe waren dort, einer sass am Eingänge des Tempelberges, einer sass am Eingange des Vorhofes und einer sass in der Quader - Halle. Man kommt zu dem, welcher am Eingänge des Tempelberges sitzt und sagt: „so habe ich erklärt und so haben meine Kollegen erklärt; so habe ich gemeint und so haben meine Kollegen gemeint.“ Haben sie nun darüber eine Überlieferung, so sagen sie ihnen (Bescheid); wo nicht, so kommen sie zu denen, die am Eingänge des Vorhofes sitzen, und er sagt (abermals): „so habe ich erklärt und so haben meine Kollegen erklärt; so habe ich gemeint und so haben meine Kollegen gemeint.“ Haben sie darüber eine Überlieferung, so sagen sie ihnen (Bescheid); wo nicht, so kommen diese und jene zu dem hohen Gerichtshofe in der Quader-Halle, von dem die Lehre für ganz Israel ausgeht, wie es heisst (Deut. 17, 10): „von diesem Orte, den der Ewige erwählt.“ — Kehrt Einer in seine Stadt zurück und lehrt wiederholt, wie er (vorhin) gelehrt hat, so ist er noch nicht schuldig; hat er aber für die Ausübung entschieden, so ist er schuldig, denn es heisst (Deut. 17, 12): „Der Mann, der mit Vermessenheit handelt;“ er ist also nicht eher schuldig, bis er für die Ausübung entscheidet. Ein Schüler, der für die Ausübung entscheidet, ist nicht schuldig; demnach bewirkt seine schwere Sünde ihm eine Erleichterung.",
+ "Die Auflehnung gegen die Worte der Schriftgelehrten ist eine schwerere Sünde als die gegen die Worte der Thora. Wer sagt: „es giebt keine Tephilinpflicht,“ um die Vorschriften der Thora zu übertreten, ist nicht strafbar; wer aber sagt: „es sind fünf Gehäuse nötbig,“ um so zu den Worten der Schriftgelehrten etwas hinzuzufügen, ist schuldig.",
+ "Man tötet ihn nicht durch das Gericht seiner Stadt, auch nicht durch das Gericht zu Jabneh, sondern man bringt ihn zum obersten Gerichte nach Jerusalem hinauf, wo man ihn bis zum Feste bewacht und ihn während der Festeszeit tötet, denn es heisst (Deut. 17, 13): „Das ganze Volk soll hören und sich fürchten und fortan nicht freveln;„ dies die Worte R. Akiba’s. R Jehuda sagt: Man darf seine Bestrafung nicht aufschieben, vielmehr tötet man ihn sogleich, dann schreibt man (Briefe) und sendet (sie durch) Boten nach allen Orten: „N., Sohn des N., ist vom Gerichte zum Tode verurteilt worden.“",
+ "„Ein falscher Prophet.„ — Wer prophezeiht, was er nicht vernommen und was nicht ihm offenbart worden ist, der wird durch Menschenhände getötet, wer aber seine Prophezeihung unterdrückt, wer die Worte eines Propheten missachtet und ein Prophet, der seine eigenen Worte übertritt, erleidet den Tod durch Gottes Hand, denn es heisst (Deut. 18, 19): „Ich werde es von ihm fordern“.",
+ "„Wer im Namen eines fremden Gottes prophezeiht;„ das ist Einer, der spricht: „so hat der fremde Gott gesagt;“ wenn er auch mit der Halachah übereinstimmt, indem er das Unreine für unrein und das Reine für rein erklärt. — „Wer einer Ehefrau beiwohnt.„ — Sobald sie in den Besitz des Mannes zur Heirat übergegangen, wiewohl sie noch nicht geehelicht worden ist, wird der ihr Beiwohnende mit Erdrosselung bestraft. — „Die falschen Zeugen wider eine Priesterstochter und wer mit einer solchen Unzucht treibt„; denn alle falschen Zeugen kommen früher zu demselben Tode, [den sie dem Angeklagten zugedachten], mit Ausnähme der falschen Zeugen wider eine Priesterstochter und ihren [angeblichen] Buhlen."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de67e4a9af6c4b7b8da4ba471cd1a8554cbae01c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/",
+ "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 1.0,
+ "license": "CC-BY",
+ "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Cases concerning property [are decided] by three. Cases concerning robbery or personal injury, by three. Claims for full damages or half-damages, twofold restitution, or fourfold or fivefold restitution, by three. Claims against a rapist, a seducer and one who defames [a virgin are decided] by three, according to Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: “One who defames [a virgin is decided] by twenty-three, for there may arise from it a capital case.",
+ "[Cases concerning offenses punishable by] beating [are decided] by three. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said twenty-three. The intercalation of the month and intercalation of the year [are decided] by three, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “The matter is begun by three, discussed by five, and decided upon by seven. But if they decided upon it with three, the intercalation is valid.”",
+ "The laying on of the elders’ hands and the breaking of the heifer’s neck [are decided upon] by three, according to Rabbi Shimon. But Rabbi Judah says: “By five.” The rites of halitzah and “refusal” [are performed] before three. The fruit of fourth year plantings and Second Tithes whose value is not known [are redeemed] before three. Things dedicated to the Temple [are redeemed] before three. Vows of evaluation to be redeemed with movable property, [are evaluated] before three. Rabbi Judah says: “One must be a priest.” [Vows of evaluation], [to be redeemed] with land [are evaluated] before nine and a priest. And similarly [for the evaluation] of a man.",
+ "Cases concerning offenses punishable by death [are decided] by twenty three. A beast that has sexual relations with a woman or with a man is [judged] by twenty three, as it says, “You shall execute the woman and the beast” (Lev. 20:16) and it says, “You shall execute the beast”. The ox that is stoned [is judged] by twenty three, as it says, “The ox shall be stoned and also its owner shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:29), as is the death of the owner, so too is the death of the ox. The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther, or serpent [that have killed a human being] their death is [adjudicated] by twenty three. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Anyone who kills them before they come to court merits.” But Rabbi Akiva says: “Their death must be [adjudicated] by twenty three.",
+ "A tribe, a false prophet, or the high priest may not be tried save by the court of seventy-one; They may not send forth the people to wage a battle of free choice save by the decision of the court of one and seventy; They may not add to the City [of Jerusalem], or the Courts of the Temple save by the decision of the court of seventy-one; They may not set up sanhedrins for the several tribes save by the decision of the court of one and seventy. And they may not proclaim [any city to be] an Apostate City (ir ha-niddahat) (Deut. 13:13–19] save by the decision of one and seventy. No city on the frontier may be proclaimed an Apostate City, nor three together, but only one or two.",
+ "The greater Sanhedrin was made up of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three. From where do we learn that the greater Sanhedrin should be made up of seventy one? As it says, “Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel” (Num. 11:16), and when Moses is added to them there is seventy one. Rabbi Judah says: “Seventy.” From where do we learn that the little Sanhedrin should be made up of twenty three? As it says, “The assembly shall judge”, “The assembly shall deliver” (Num. 35:24-25), an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers, thus we have twenty. And from where do we know that an assembly has ten? As it says, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation?” (Num. 14:27) [which refers to the twelve spies] but Joshua and Caleb were not included. And from where do we learn that we should bring three others [to the twenty]? By inference from what it says, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil” (Ex. 23:2), I conclude that I must be with them to do well. Then why does it say, “[To follow] after the many to change judgment” (Ex. 23:2). [It means that] your verdict of condemnation should not be like your verdict of acquittal, for your verdict of acquittal is reached by the decision of a majority of one, but your verdict of condemnation must be reached by the decision of a majority of two. The court must not be divisible equally, therefore they add to them one more; thus they are twenty three. And how many should there be in a city that it may be fit to have a Sanhedrin? A hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nehemiah says: “Two hundred and thirty, so that [the Sanhedrin of twenty three] should correspond with them that are chiefs of [at least] groups of ten."
+ ],
+ [
+ "The High Priest can judge and be judged; he can testify and others can testify against him. He can perform halitzah for another’s wife and others can perform halitzah for his wife or contract levirate marriage with his widow, but he cannot contract levirate marriage since he is forbidden to marry a widow. If any of his near kin die he may not follow after the bier, rather when the bearers are not visible, he is visible, when they are visible he is not visible, and he may go out with them as far as the city gate, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, “He may not leave the Temple, as it says, “Nor shall he go out of the Sanctuary”. And when he comforts other mourners the custom is for all of the people to pass by, the one after the other, while the appointed [priest] stands between him and the people. And when he receives comfort from others, all the people say to him, “Let us be your atonement”, and he says to them, “May you be blessed by Heaven.” When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit around on the ground and he sits on a stool.",
+ "The king can neither judge nor be judged, he cannot testify and others cannot testify against him. He may not perform halitzah, nor may others perform halitzah for his wife. He may not contract levirate marriage nor may his brothers contract levirate marriage with his wife. Rabbi Judah says: “If he wished to perform halitzah or to contract levirate marriage his memory is a blessing.” They said to him: “They should not listen to him.” None may marry his widow. Rabbi Judah says: “The king may marry the widow of a king, for so have we found it with David, who married the widow of Saul, as it says, “And I gave you my master’s house and my master’s wives into your embrace” (II Samuel 12:8).",
+ "If any of his near kin die he may not go out of the door of his palace. Rabbi Judah says: “If he wishes to follow the bier he may, since we have found that David followed the bier of Avner, as it says, “And King David followed the bier” (II Samuel 3:31) They answered, “That was only to appease the people.” When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit on the floor and he sits on a couch.",
+ "He may send forth the people to a battle waged of free choice by the decision of the court of seventy one. He may break through [the private domain of any man] to make himself a road and none may protest him. The king’s road has no limit. Whatsoever the people take in plunder they must place before him, and he may take first. “And he shall not have many wives” (Deut. 17:17) eighteen only. Rabbi Judah says: “He may take many wives provided they don’t turn his heart away [from worshipping God]. Rabbi Shimon says: “Even one that might turn his heart away, he should not marry. Why then does it say, “He shall not have many wives”, even if they are like Avigayil. “He shall not keep many horses” (Deut. 17:16) enough for his chariot only. “Nor shall he amass silver and gold to excess” (Deut. 17:17) enough to pay his soldier’s wages. He must write a Torah scroll for himself; when he goes forth to battle he shall take it with him, and when he returns he shall bring it back with him; when he sits in judgement it shall be with him, and when he sits to eat it shall be with him, as it says, “Let it remain with him and let him read it all his life” (Deut. 17:19)",
+ "None may ride his horse and none may sit on his throne and none may make use of his scepter. No one may see him when his hair is being cut or when he is naked or when he is in the bath house, for it says, “You shall set a king upon yourself” (Deut. 17:15) that his awe should be over you."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Cases concerning property [are decided] by three [judges].This [litigant] chooses one and this [litigant] chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.” This [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, and this [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them. This [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.",
+ "If one litigant said to the other, “I accept my father as trustworthy”, or “I accept your father as trustworthy”, or “I accept three herdsman as trustworthy”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.” If one must take an oath before his fellow, and his fellow said to him, “Vow to me by the life of your head”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.”",
+ "And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce. Rabbi Shimon said: “In the beginning they called them ‘gatherers’ of Seventh Year produce, but after the oppressors grew many they changed this and called them ‘traffickers’ of Seventh Year produce.” Rabbi Judah said: “This applies only if they have no other trade, but if they have some other trade other than that, they are not disqualified.”",
+ "These are the relatives [that are not qualified to be witnesses or judges]: A suitor’s father, brother, father’s brother, mother’s brother, sister’s husband, father’s sister’s husband, mother’s sister’s husband, mother’s husband, father-in-law, or wife’s sister’s husband them and their sons and their sons-in-law; also the suitor’s step-son only [but not the stepsons’ sons]. Rabbi Yose said, “Such was the mishnah of Rabbi Akiva, but the first mishnah taught: ‘a suitor’s uncle, or his uncle’s son, and all that are qualified to be his heir. Moreover all that were kinsmen at the time [are disqualified]; but kinsmen that have ceased to be kinsmen become qualified.” Rabbi Judah says: “If a man’s daughter died and left children, her husband still counts as a kinsman.”",
+ "A friend or an enemy [is disqualified]. “A friend”: this is one’s groomsman. “An enemy”: anyone whom he has not spoken to in three days because of anger. They replied: “Israelites are not suspected of such.”",
+ "How do they check the witnesses? They bring them in and warn them, and then they take them out and leave behind the most important of [the witnesses]. And they would say to him: “State [for us], how do you know that this one is in debt to this one?” If he said, “He said to me, ‘I am in debt to him’, or ‘So-and-so said to me that he was in debt to him’”, he has said nothing. He must be able to say, “In our presence he acknowledged to the other one that he owed him 200 zuz.” Afterward they bring in the second witness and check him. If their words were found to agree, the judges discuss the matter. If two say, “He is not guilty” and one says, “He is guilty”, he is not guilty. If two say, “He is guilty” and one says, “He is not guilty”, he is guilty. If one says, “He is not guilty”, and one says, “He is guilty”, and even if two declared him not guilty or declared him guilty while one said, “I do not know”, they must add more judges.",
+ "When the judges reached their decision they would bring in the litigants. The chief among the judges says: “You, so-and-so are not obligated”, or “You, so-and-so are obligated”. And from where do we know that after one of the judges has gone out that he may not say, “I declared him not obligated and my colleagues declared him obligated, so what can I do since they outvoted me?” Of such a one it says, “Do not go about as a talebearer amongst your people” (Lev. 19:16) and it also says, “He that goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets” (Proverbs 11:13).",
+ "So long as a litigant can produce proof he may overturn the verdict. If they had said to him, “Bring all of the proofs that you have within thirty days” and he brought them within thirty days, the court may overturn the verdict. But if he brought any proof after thirty days, the court cannot reverse the verdict. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “What could he have done that he did not find [the proof] within thirty days but found it after thirty days?” If they had said to him, “Bring witnesses” and he said, “I have no witnesses”, or [if they said], “Bring proof”, and he said, “I have no proof”, and he later found proof or witnesses, then they are totally invalid. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: “What could he have done that he did not know that he had witnesses, then found witnesses, or that he did not know that he had proof, then found proof? If they had said to him, “Bring witnesses” and he said, “I have no witnesses”, or [if they said], “Bring proof”, and he said, “I have no proof”, but when he saw that he was about to be found obligated, he said, “Come near, so-and-so and so-and-so and testify for me!”, or if he brought forth some proof from his wallet, then they are totally invalid."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry [of the witnesses], as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases [are decided] by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either [from conviction] to acquittal or [from acquittal] to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict [from conviction] to acquittal but not [from acquittal] to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival.",
+ "In non-capital cases and those concerning uncleanness and cleanness [the judges declare their opinion] beginning from the eldest, but in capital cases they begin from [them that sit at] the side. All are qualified to try non-capital cases, but not all are qualified to try capital cases, only priests, levites and Israelites that may give [their daughters] in marriage to priests.",
+ "The Sanhedrin was arranged like the half of a round threshing-floor so that they all might see one another. Before them stood the two scribes of the judges, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal and the words of them that favored conviction. Rabbi Judah says: “There were three: one wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal, and one wrote down the words of them that favored conviction, and the third wrote down the words of both them that favored acquittal and them that favored conviction.",
+ "And there were three rows of disciples of the Sages who sat before them, and each knew his proper place. If they needed to appoint [another as a judge] they appointed him from the first row, and one from the second row came into the first row, and one from the third row came into the second row, and they chose another from the congregation and set him in the third row. He did not sit in the place of the former, but he sat in the place that was proper for him.",
+ "How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, [saying], “Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his descendants [that should have been born to him] to the end of the world.” For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, “The bloods of your brother cry out” (Gen. 4:10). It doesn’t say, “The blood of your brother”, but rather “The bloods of your brother” meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another saying is, “The bloods of your brother” that his blood was cast over trees and stones. Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again [but a single person was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”. Again, [but a single person was created] against the heretics so they should not say, “There are many ruling powers in heaven”. Again [but a single person was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity] (Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man?,” was it not said, “When the wicked perish there is rejoicing” (Proverbs 11:10).]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "They used to examine witnesses with seven inquiries: In what week of years? In what year? In what month? On what date in the month? On what day? In what hour? In what place? Rabbi Yose says: [They only asked:] On what day? In what hour? In what place? [Moreover they asked:] Do you recognize him? Did you warn him? If one had committed idolatry [they asked the witnesses:] What did he worship and how did he worship it?",
+ "The more a judge examines the evidence the more he is deserving of praise. Ben Zakkai once checked with regards to the stalks of figs. What is the difference between inquiries and examinations? With regards to inquiries, if one [of the two witnesses] says “I do not know”, their evidence becomes invalid. But if to one of the examinations one answered, “I do not know”, or even if they both answered, “We do not know”, their evidence remains valid. Yet if they contradict each other, whether during the inquiries or examinations, their evidence becomes invalid.",
+ "If one said, “On the second of the month”, and the other said, “On the third”, their evidence remains valid, since one may have known that the month was intercalated and the other may not have known that the month was intercalated. If one said, “On the third” and the other said, “On the fifth”, their evidence is invalid. If one said, “At the second hour”, and the other said, “At the third”, their evidence remains valid. If one said, “At the third hour”, and the other said, “At the fifth”, their evidence becomes invalid. Rabbi Judah says: “It remains valid. [But] if one said, ‘At the fifth hour’ and one said ‘At the seventh’, their evidence becomes invalid, since at the fifth hour the sun is in the east and at the seventh it is in the west.”",
+ "They afterward bring in the second witness and examine him. If their words were found to agree together they begin [to examine the evidence] in favor of acquittal. If one of the witnesses said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, or if one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his conviction”, they silence him. If one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, they bring him up and set him among them and he does not come down from there all day. If there is anything of substance in his words they listen to him. Even if the accused said, “I have something to argue in favor of my acquittal”, they listen to him, provided that there is substance to his words.",
+ "If they find him not guilty, he is discharged, if not, it [the trial] is adjourned till the following day. During this time they [the judges] go about in pairs, practice moderation in food, drink no wine the whole day, and discuss the case throughout the night. Early next morning they reassemble in court. He who is in favor of acquittal states, ‘I declare him innocent and I stand by my opinion.’ While he who is in favor of condemnation says: ‘I declare him guilty and stand by my opinion.’ One who [previously] argued for conviction may now argue for acquittal, but one who [previously] argued for acquittal may not now argue for conviction. If they have made any mistake, the two judges’ scribes are to remind them. If they find him not guilty, they discharge him. If not, they take a vote. If twelve acquit and eleven condemn, he is acquitted. If twelve condemn and eleven acquit, or if eleven condemn and eleven acquit and one says, ‘I do not know,’ or even if twenty-two acquit or condemn and a single one says, ‘I do not know,’ they add to the judges. Up to what number is the court increased? By twos up to the limit of seventy-one. If thirty-six acquit and thirty-five condemn, he is acquitted. But if thirty-six condemn and thirty-five acquit, the two sides debate the case together until one of those who condemn agrees with the view of those who are for acquittal."
+ ],
+ [
+ "When the trial is completed he [the condemned] is led forth to be stoned. The place of stoning was outside of the court, as it is says, “Bring out him that has cursed” (Lev. 24:14). A man was stationed at the door of the court with the handkerchiefs in his hand, and a man on a horse was stationed at a distance yet within sight of him. If one says, ‘I have something [further] to state in his favor’, he [the signaler] waves the handkerchief, and the man on the horse runs and stops them. And even if he [the convict] himself says, ‘I have something to plead in my own favor’, he is brought back, even four or five times, providing, however, that there is substance in his assertion. If then they find him innocent, they discharge him. But if not, he goes forth to be stoned, and a herald precedes him [crying]: so and so, the son of so and so, is going forth to be stoned because he committed such and such an offense, and so and so are his witnesses. Whoever knows anything in his favor, let him come and state it.”",
+ "When he is about ten cubits away from the place of stoning, they say to him, ‘confess’, for such is the practice of all who are executed, that they [first] confess, for he who confesses has a portion in the world to come. For so we find in the case of Achan, that Joshua said to him, “My son, pay honor to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make confession to him. [Tell me what you have done, do not hold anything back from me.]” And Achan answered Joshua and said, “It is true, I have sinned against the Lord the God of Israel, and this is what I have done” (Josh. 7:19-20). And how do we know that his confessions made atonement for him? As it says, “And Joshua said, “What calamity have you brought upon us! The Lord will bring calamity upon you this day” (Josh. 7:35), [meaning] this day you are a calamity, but you are not to be a calamity in the next world. And if he does not know how to confess, they say to him, “Say, may my death be an expiation for all my sins.” Rabbi Judah said: “If he knows that he is a victim of false evidence, he can say: may my death be an expiation for all my sins but this.” They [the sages] said to him: “If so, everyone will speak likewise in order to clear himself.”",
+ "When he is about four cubits distant from the place of stoning, he is stripped of his clothing. A man is covered in front and a woman both in front and behind, according to Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say: “A man is to be stoned naked and a woman is not to be stoned naked.",
+ "The place of stoning was twice a man’s height. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, [so that] he was overturned on his heart. He was then turned on his back. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled [his duty]; but if not, the second witness took a stone and threw it on his chest. If he died thereby, he had done [his duty]; but if not, he [the criminal] was stoned by all Israel, for it is says: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people” (Deut. 17:7). All who are stoned are [afterwards] hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: “Only the blasphemer and the idolater are hanged.” A man is hanged with his face towards the spectators, but a woman with her face towards the gallows, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: a man is hanged, but not a woman. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: “But did not Shimon ben Shetah hang women at ashkelon?” They said: “[On that occasion] he hanged eighty women, even though two must not be tried on the same day. How is he hanged? The post is sunk into the ground with a [cross-] piece branching off [at the top] and he brings his hands together one over the other and hangs him up [thereby]. R. Jose said: the post is leaned against the wall, and he hangs him up the way butchers do. He is immediately let down. If he is left [hanging] over night, a negative command is thereby transgressed, for it says, “You shall not let his corpse remain all night upon the tree, but you must bury him the same day because a hanged body is a curse against god” (Deut. 21:23). As if to say why was he hanged? because he cursed the name [of god]; and so the name of Heaven [God] is profaned.",
+ "R. Meir said: “When man suffers, what expression does the shechinah (God’s presence) use? “My head is too light (a euphemism for heavy) for me, my arm is too light (a euphemism for heavy) for me.” If god is so grieved over the blood of the wicked that is shed, how much more so over the blood of the righteous! And not only of this one [a criminal did the sages not to leave him overnight] but whosoever lets his dead lie over night transgresses a negative commandment. If he kept him over night for the sake of his honor, to procure for him a coffin or a shroud, he does not transgress. And they did not bury him [the executed person] in his ancestral tomb, but two burial places were prepared by the court, one for those who were decapitated or strangled, and the other for those who were stoned or burned.",
+ "When the flesh was completely decomposed, the bones were gathered and buried in their proper place. The relatives then came and greeted the judges and witnesses, as if to say, we have no [ill feelings] against you, for you gave a true judgment. And they observed no mourning rites but grieved [for him], for grief is in the heart alone."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Four deaths have been entrusted to the court: stoning, burning, slaying [by the sword] and strangulation. R. Simeon says: “burning, stoning, strangulation and slaying.” That (the previous chapter) is the manner of stoning.",
+ "The manner in which burning is executed is as follows: They would lower him into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two loose ends pulled in opposite directions, forcing him to open his mouth. A wick was then lit, and thrown into his mouth, so that it descended into his body and burned his bowels. R. Judah says: “Should he have died at their hands [being strangled by the bandage before the wick was thrown into his mouth], they would not have fulfilled the requirements of execution by fire. Rather his mouth was forced open with pincers against his wish, the wick lit and thrown into his mouth, so that it descended into his body and burned his bowels. Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok said: “It once happened that a priest’s daughter committed adultery, whereupon bundles of sticks were placed around her and she was burnt. The Sages said to him: “That was because the court at that time was not well learned in law.",
+ "Slaying by the sword was performed thus: they would cut off his head by the sword, as is done by the civil authorities. R. Judah says: “This is a disgrace! Rather his head was laid on a block and severed with an axe. They said to him: “No death is more disgraceful than this.” Strangulation was performed thus: the condemned man was lowered into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead.",
+ "The following are stoned:He who has sexual relations with his mother, with his father’s wife, with his daughter-in-law, with a male; with a beast; a woman who commits bestiality with a beast; a blasphemer; an idolater; one who gives of his seed to molech; a necromancer or a wizard; one who desecrates the Sabbath; he who curses his father or mother; he who commits adultery with a betrothed woman; one who incites [individuals to idolatry]; one who seduces [a whole town to idolatry]; a sorcerer; and a wayward and rebellious son. He who has sexual relations with his mother incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his mother and as his father’s wife. R. Judah says: “He is liable in respect of her as his mother only.” He who has sexual relations with his father’s wife incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his father’s wife, and as a married woman, both during his father’s lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. He who has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his daughter-in-law and as a married woman, both during his son’s lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. He who has sexual relations with a male or a beast, and a woman that commits bestiality: if the man has sinned, how has the animal sinned? But because the human was enticed to sin by the animal, therefore scripture ordered that it should be stoned. Another reason is that the animal should not pass through the market, and people say, this is the animal on account of which so and so was stoned.",
+ "The blasphemer is punished only if he utters [the divine] name. Rabbi Joshua b. Korcha said: “The whole day [of the trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the divine name: ‘may Yose smite Yose.’” When the trial was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons were removed [from court], and the chief witness was told, ‘State literally what you heard.’ Thereupon he did so, [using the divine name]. The judges then arose and tore their garments, which were not to be resewn. The second witness stated: “I too have heard thus” [but not uttering the divine name], and the third says: “I too heard thus.”",
+ "He who engages in idol-worship [is executed]. This includes the one who serves it, sacrifices, offers incense, makes libations, bows to it, accepts it as a god, or says to it, “You are my god.” But he who embraces, kisses it, sweeps or sprinkles the ground before it, washes it, anoints it, clothes it, or puts shoes on it, he transgresses a negative commandment [but is not executed]. He who vows or swears by its name, violates a negative commandment. He who uncovers himself before Baal-Peor [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped. He who casts a stone on Merculis [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped.",
+ "He who gives of his seed to Molech is not liable unless he delivers it to Molech and causes it to pass through the fire. If he gave it to Molech but did not cause it to pass through the fire, or he caused it to pass through fire but did not give it to Molech, he incurs no penalty, unless he does both. A Ba’al Ob is the pithom who speaks from his armpit. The Yidde’oni is one who speaks from his mouth. These two are stoned; while he who inquires of them transgresses a formal prohibition.",
+ "He who desecrates the Sabbath [is stoned], providing that it is an offence punished by “kareth” if deliberate, and by a sin-offering if unwitting. One who curses His father or his mother is not punished unless he curses them by the divine name. If he cursed them by a nickname, Rabbi Meir held him liable, but the Sages ruled that he is exempt.",
+ "He who has sexual relations with a betrothed young woman is not punished until she is a young woman, a virgin, betrothed, and in her father’s house. If two men had sexual relations with her, the first is stoned, but the second is strangled.",
+ "One who incites [individuals to idolatry] -- this refers to an ordinary person who incites an individual who said, “There is an idol in such and such a place; it eats thus, it drinks thus, it does good [to those who worship it] and harm [to those who do not].” For all who are liable for the death penalty according to the Torah no witnesses are hidden to entrap them, excepting for this one. If he said [these things] to two, they themselves are witnesses against him, and he is brought to court and stoned. But if he said [these things] to one, he should reply, “I have friends who wish to do so likewise [come and propose it to them too].” But if he was cunning and declined to speak before them, witnesses are hidden behind a partition, while he [who was incited] says to him, make your proposal to me now in private. When the inciter says to him (repeats to him what he had already said), the other replies, “How can we abandon our God in heaven to go and serve wood and stones?” Should he retract, it is well. But if he answers, “It is our duty [to worship idols], and is seemly for us”, then the witnesses stationed behind the partition take him to court, and have him stoned. He who incites [individuals to idolatry is one who] is one who says, “I will worship it”, or, “I will go and worship”, or, “let us go and worship”; or, “I will sacrifice [to it]”, “I will go and sacrifice”, “let us go and sacrifice”; “I will burn incense, “I will go and burn incense”; “let us go and burn incense”; or “I will make libations to it”, “I will go and make libations to it”, “let us go and make libations”; “I will prostrate myself before it”, “I will go and prostrate myself”, “let us go and prostrate ourselves”. One who seduces [a whole town to idolatry] is one who says, “Let us go and serve idols”.",
+ "A sorcerer, if he actually performs magic, is liable [to death], but not if he merely creates illusions. Rabbi Akiva says in Rabbi Joshua’s name: “If two are gathering cucumbers [by magic] one may be punished and the other exempt: he who really gathers them is punished: while he who produces an illusion is exempt.”"
+ ],
+ [
+ "A wayward and rebellious son: at what age does he become liable [to be stoned]? From the time that he produces two hairs until the beard is full by which is meant the hair of the genitals, not that of the face, but the Sages used euphemisms, for it says, “If a man has a son” (Deut. 21:18) a son, but not a daughter; ‘a son’, but not an adult man. The minor is exempt, since he does not come within the scope of the commandments.",
+ "When does he become liable [to be stoned]? Once he has eaten a tartemar of meat and drunk half a log of wine. Rabbi Yose said: “A maneh of meat and a log of wine. If he ate it in a company [celebrating] a religious act; or at a gathering for the purpose of intercalating the month; if he ate the second tithe in Jerusalem; if he ate the carrion or terefoth (meat that was not slaughtered in a kosher fashion), abominable and creeping things, or untithed produce, or the first tithe from which terumah had not been separated, or unredeemed second tithe, or unredeemed sacred food; if his eating involved a religious act or a transgression; if he ate any food but did not eat meat or drank any drink but did not drink wine, he does not become a ‘stubborn and rebellious son’, unless he eats meat and drinks wine, for it is written, “This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice;] he is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deut. 21:20). Although there is no clear proof for this, there is at least a hint, as it is says, “Do not be among wine drinkers, among gluttonous meat eaters of flesh” (Proverbs 23:20).",
+ "If he stole from his father and ate it on his father’s property, or of strangers and ate it on the property of the strangers, or of strangers and ate on his father’s property, he does not become a “wayward and rebellious son,” until he steals from his father and eats on other’s property. Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah said: “Until he steals from his father and mother.”",
+ "If his father wants [to have him punished], but not his mother; or his father does not want [to have him punished] but his mother does, he is not treated as a ‘wayward a rebellious son’, unless they both desire it. Rabbi Judah said: “If his mother is not fit for his father, he does not become a ‘wayward and rebellious son”. If one of them [his father or his mother] had a hand cut off, or was lame, mute, blind or deaf, he cannot become a ‘wayward a rebellious son’, because it says “his father and mother shall take hold of him” (Deut. 21:19) not those with a hand cut off; “and bring him out”, not lame parents; “and they shall say”, and not mute parents; “this our son”, and not blind parents; “he will not obey our voice” (Deut. 21:20), and not deaf parents. He is warned in the presence of three and beaten. If he transgresses again after this, he is tried by a court of twenty three. He cannot be sentenced to stoning unless the first three are present, because it says, “this our son” (Deut. 21:20), [implying], this one who was whipped in your presence. If he [the rebellious son] fled before his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he is free. But if he fled after his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he remains liable.",
+ "A “wayward and rebellious son” is judged on account of his outcome: let him die innocent and let him not die guilty. For the death of the wicked benefits themselves and the world; [and the death] of the righteous, injures themselves and the world. Wine and sleep of the wicked benefit themselves and the world; of the righteous, injure themselves and the world The scattering of the wicked benefits themselves and the world; of the righteous, injures themselves and the world. The assembling of the wicked injures themselves and the world; of the righteous, benefits themselves and the world. The tranquillity of the wicked injures themselves and the world; of the righteous, benefits themselves and the world.",
+ "[The thief] who burrows his way in [to someone’s home] is judged on account of his outcome. If he burrowed his way in and broke a jug, should there be blood-guiltiness for him, he must pay [for the jug], but if there is no blood-guiltiness for him, he is not liable.",
+ "The following can be saved [from sinning] even at the cost of their lives: he who pursues after his neighbor to slay him, [or] after a male [to rape him], [or] after a betrothed maiden [to rape her]. But he who pursues after an animal [to have relations with it], or one who would violate the Sabbath, or commit idolatry, must not be saved [from sinning] at the cost of his life."
+ ],
+ [
+ "The following are burnt: he who has sexual relations with a woman and her daughter, and a priest’s adulterous daughter. There is included in [the prohibition of having relations with] a woman and her daughter his own daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter and the daughter of her daughter or son, his mother-in-law, her mother, and his father-in-law’s mother. The following are decapitated: a murderer, and the inhabitants of a city subverted into worshipping idols. A murderer who slew his fellow with a stone or iron, or kept him down under water or in fire, so that he could not get out of there, is executed. If he pushed him into water or fire, but he could get out of there , yet he died, he is not liable [for the death penalty]. If he set a dog or a snake against him [and they killed him], he is free from death. If he caused a snake to bite him, Rabbi Judah ruled that he is liable [for the death penalty] and the Sages, that he is not. If a man struck his fellow, whether with a stone or with his fist, and they [the experts] declared that he would die, but then its effect lessened [so that it was thought that he would live], only to increase subsequently, so that he died he is liable. Rabbi Nehemiah said that he is exempt, since there is a strong possibility [that he did not die as a result of his injuries].",
+ "If he intended to kill an animal but killed a man, or [he intended to kill] a non-Jew and he killed an Israelite, or [if he intended to kill] a prematurely born child [who was bound to die in any case] and he killed a viable child, he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on his loins, and the blow was insufficient to kill [when struck] on his loins, but struck the heart instead, where it was sufficient to kill, and he died he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on the heart, where it was sufficient to kill but struck him on the loins, where it was not sufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike an adult, and the blow was insufficient to kill [an adult], but the blow landed on a child, whom it was enough to kill, and he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike a child with a blow sufficient to kill a child, but struck an adult, for whom it was insufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. But if he intended to strike his loins with sufficient force to kill, but struck the heart instead, he is liable. If he intended to strike an adult with a blow sufficient to kill an adult, but struck a child instead, and he died, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon said: “Even if he intended to kill one but killed another, he is not liable.”",
+ "If a murderer became mixed up with others, they are all exempted [from the death penalty]. R. Judah said: they are placed in a cell. If a number of persons condemned to different types of sentences became mixed with one another, they are executed by the most lenient. If criminals condemned to stoning [became mixed up] with others condemned to burning, Rabbi Shimon said: they are stoned, because burning is severer. But the sages say they are burned, because stoning is severer. Rabbi Shimon said to them: “If burning was not severer, it would not be decreed for a priest's adulterous daughter.” They replied: “If stoning was not severer, it would not be the penalty of a blasphemer and an idolater.” If men condemned to decapitation became mixed up with others condemned to strangling, Rabbi Shimon said: “They are [all] decapitated.” The sages say: “They are [all] strangled.”",
+ "He who incurs two death penalties imposed by the court is executed by the severer. If he committed one sin for which a twofold death penalty is incurred, he is executed by the severer. R. Jose says: “He is judged according to the first penalty which was placed upon him.”",
+ "He who was flogged and then flogged again [for two transgressions, and then sinned again,] is placed by the court in a cell and fed with barley bread, until his stomach bursts. One who commits murder without witnesses is placed in a cell and [forcibly] fed with bread of adversity and water of affliction.",
+ "If one steals the sacred vessel called a “kasvah” (Numbers 4:7), or cursed by the name of an idol, or has sexual relations with an Aramean (non-Jewish) woman, he is punished by zealots. If a priest performed the temple service while impure, his fellow priests do not bring him to the court, but rather the young priests take him out into the courtyard and split his skull with clubs. A layman who performed the service in the Temple: Rabbi Akiva says: “He is strangled.” But the Sages say: “[His death is] at the hands of heaven.”"
+ ],
+ [
+ "All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.”",
+ "Three kings and four commoners have no portion in the world to come: The three kings are Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh. Rabbi Judah says: “Manasseh has a portion in the world to come, for it says, “He prayed to him, and He granted his prayer, and heard his plea and he restored him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom” (II Chronicles 33:13). They [the sages] said to him: “They restored him to his kingdom, but not to [his portion in] the world to come.” The four commoners are: Bilaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi.",
+ "The generation of the flood has no portion in the world to come, nor will they stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “[And the Lord said,] my spirit will not always enter into judgment with man” (Genesis 6:3), [meaning] there will be neither judgment nor [my] spirit for them. The generation of the dispersion have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “So the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8): “So the lord scattered them”, refers to this world, “And from there the Lord scattered them” (Genesis 11:9), refers to the world to come. The men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners before the Lord” (Genesis 13:1: “wicked” in this world, and “sinners” in the world to come; Yet will they stand at judgment. R. Nehemiah says: “Neither [the generation of the flood nor the men of Sodom] will stand at judgment, as it says, “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5) “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”, refers to the generation of the flood; “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”, refers to the men of Sodom. They [the Sages] said to him: “They will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.” The spies have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And those men that spread such calumnies about the land, died by the plague before the lord” (Numbers 14:37): “[they] died” in this world, “by the plague” in the world to come. The generation of the wilderness have no share in the world to come and will not stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:3, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5). The congregation of Korah is not destined to ascend [from the earth], as it says, “And the earth closed upon them” in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33) in the world to come, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘The Lord kills and makes alive: He brings down to Sheol, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). The ten tribes will not return [to the Land of Israel], for it is said, “And He cast them into another land, as is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:2: just as the day goes and does not return, so they too went and will not return: according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “As is this day’, just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so the ten tribes even as it went dark for them, so will it in the future become light for them.",
+ "The inhabitants of a city seduced into worshipping idols have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “Certain men, wicked persons, have gone out from among you and seduced the inhabitants of their town” (Deuteronomy 13:14). They are not executed unless the seducers are of that city and that tribe, and until the majority of the city are seduced, and the seducers are men. If women or minors seduced it, or if a minority of the city were seduced, or if the seducers were from outside the city, they are treated as individuals, and therefore two witnesses and a formal warning are necessary for each [offender]. In this [the penalty of] individuals is severer than [that of] the multitudes, for individuals are stoned, therefore their property is saved; but the multitudes are decapitated; hence their possessions are destroyed.",
+ "“You shall surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword” (Deut. 13:16): a company of donkey-drivers or camel-drivers passing from place to place saves the city. “Doom it and all that is in it” (ibid.): From here they said that the property of the righteous, which is within [the city] is destroyed, but that which is outside of the city is saved, while that of the wicked, whether in or outside of the city, is destroyed.",
+ "“And you shall gather all its spoil into the public square” (Deut. 13:17): if it had no public square, one is made for it; if the public square was outside of [the city], it is brought within it. “And you shall burn with fire the city, and all its spoil as a whole burnt offering for the Lord your God” (ibid.): “And all its spoil”, but not the spoil of heaven. From here they said, the holy objects in the city must be redeemed and the heave offerings (terumoth) allowed to rot; and the second tithe and the sacred writings hidden. “A whole burnt offering for the Lord your God”: Rabbi Shimon said: “The holy Blessed One declared, ‘If you execute judgment upon the seduced city, I will ascribe merit to you as though you had sacrificed to me a whole offering.’” “And it shall remain an everlasting ruin, never to be rebuilt”: it may not be made even into gardens and orchards, according to the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: “Never to be rebuilt”: it may not be built as it was, but it may be made into gardens and orchards. “Let nothing that has been doomed stick to your hand, in order that the Lord may turn His blazing anger and show you compassion” (Deut. 13:18): as long as the wicked exist in the world, there is blazing anger in the world; when the wicked perish from the world, blazing anger disappears from the world."
+ ],
+ [
+ "The following are strangled: One who strikes his father or mother; One who kidnaps a Jew; An elder who rebels against the ruling of the court; A false prophet; One who prophesies in the name of an idol; One who commits adultery; Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her. The one who strikes his father or his mother is liable only if he wounds them. In this respect, cursing is more stringent than striking, for one who curses [his/her parents] after death is liable, while one who strikes them after death is not. One who kidnaps a Jew is not liable unless he brings him onto his own property. Rabbi Judah said: “Until he brings him onto his own property and puts him to service, as it says, “If a man is found to have kidnapped a fellow Israelite, enslaving him or selling him” (Deut. 24:7). If he kidnaps his own son. Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him]. If he kidnapped one who was half a slave and half free, Rabbi Judah declares him liable, but the Sages exempt [him].",
+ "An elder rebelling against the ruling of the court [is strangled], for it says, “If there arise a matter too hard for you for judgement […you shall promptly repair to the place that the Lord your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there the Lord your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-13, JPS translation). Three courts of law were there, one situated at the entrance to the Temple mount, another at the door of the [Temple] court, and the third in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They [first] went to the court which is at the entrance to the Temple mount, and he [the rebellious elder] stated, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this first court] had heard [a ruling on the matter], they state it. If not, they go to the [second court] which is at the entrance of the Temple court, and he declares, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If [this second court] had heard [a ruling on the matter] they state it; if not, they all proceed to the great court of the Chamber of Hewn Stone from whence instruction issued to all Israel, for it says, [you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you] from that place that the Lord chose (Deut. 17:10). If he returned to his town and taught again as he did before, he is not liable. But if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it says, “Should a man act presumptuously” (Deut. 17:12) he is liable only for a practical ruling. But if a disciple gave a practical decision [opposed to the court], he is exempt: thus his stringency is his leniency.",
+ "There is greater stringency in respect to the teachings of the scribes than in respect to the torah: [thus,] if [a rebellious elder] says, there is no commandment of tefillin, so that a biblical law may be transgressed, he is exempt. [But if he rules that the tefillin must contain] five compartments, thus adding to the words of the scribes, he is liable.",
+ "He [the rebellious elder] was executed neither by his local court nor by the court at Yavneh, but rather was taken to the great court in Jerusalem and kept there until the [next] festival and executed on the festival, for it says, “And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously” (Deut. 17:13), according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Judah says: “His judgment must not be delayed, but he is executed immediately, and proclamations are written and sent by messengers to all places, “So and so has been sentenced to death at the court.”",
+ "‘A false prophet’; he who prophesies what he has not heard, or what was not told to him, is executed by man. But he who suppresses his prophecy, or disregards the words of a prophet, or a prophet who transgresses his own word , his death is at the hands of heaven, as it says, “[And if anybody fails to heed the words he speaks in my name] I Myself will call him to account (Deut. 18:19).",
+ "“He who prophesies in the name of an idol”: this is one who says, “Thus has the idol declared” even if he directed the teaching to declare the unclean, unclean, or the clean, clean. “One who has sexual relations with a married woman” after her entry into her husband’s home for marriage, though she did not have sexual relations with her husband, the one who has relations with her is strangled. “Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her”, for all false witnesses are led forth to meet the same death [which they sought to impose,] save witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Open Mishnah.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Open Mishnah.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7cec67ea4b706ef00b574f4469c06767f6a9b743
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Open Mishnah.json
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "versionSource": "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mishnah",
+ "versionTitle": "Open Mishnah",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "CC-BY-SA",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה פתוחה",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Monetary cases [are judged] by three [judges]. [Cases of] theft and personal injury [are judged] by three [judges]. [Suits for] damages or half-damages, [crimes for which one would] pay double, or pay quadruple or quintuple, [are judged] by three [judges]. [Cases of] rape, seduction, and slander [are judged] by three [judges]- these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, [a case of] slander [is judged] by twenty-three [judges], because this is a capital case.",
+ "[Cases regarding transgressions punishable by] lashing, by three. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael it was said, by twenty-three. Intercalating the month by three; intercalating the year, by three, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says, They begin with three, deliberate with five, and finish with seven. But if they finish with three, [the year] has been intercalated.",
+ "The laying of the hands by the elders, and the breaking of the neck of the calf [are performed] by three [judges], these are the words of Rabbi Shimon. But Rabbi Yehudah says, by five. Chalitzah (declination of levirate marriage) and mi'un (rejection of youth betrothal), by three. Fourth year produce or the second tithe with unknown value, by three. [Redemption of] dedications [for the Temple], by three. Valuations of chattel, by three. Rabbi Yehudah says: one [of the judges] must be a priest. [Redemption of] real estate, by nine and a priest. Similarly with [redemption of the value of] a man.",
+ "Capital cases, by twenty-three. Bestiality, by twenty-three, as it says (Leviticus 20:16) \"and you shall kill the woman and the beast,\" and it says, (Leviticus 20:15) \"and you shall kill the beast.\" An ox to be stoned, by twenty-three, as it is written (Exodus 21:29) \"the ox shall be stoned and its owner shall also be put to death,\" as is the death of the owner, so is the death of the ox. The wolf and the lion, the bear and the tiger, the leopard and the snake, are put to death by twenty-three. Rabbi Eli'ezer says: Whoever is the first to kill [the animal] has performed a meritorious deed. Rabbi Akiva says: they are put to death by twenty-three.",
+ "They may not judge a tribe, or a false prophet, or a high priest, except by a court of seventy-one. They may not [declare] an optional war, except by a court of seventy-one. They may not add [annex] to the city [Jerusalem] or [Temple] Courtyards, except by a court of seventy-one. They may not make a Sanhedrin for [individual] tribes, except by a court of seventy-one. They may not proclaim a wayward city [a city whose inhabitants are mostly idolatrous Jews], except by a court of seventy-one. They may not make a wayward city on the border, nor may they [make] three wayward cities, only one or two.",
+ "The great Sanhedrin [Highest court, charged with deciding cases and appeals that had national significance. It was comprised of 71 scholars who had received the full traditional rabbinical ordination, and its decisions fixed Jewish practice for subsequent generations.][was comprised of] seventy-one [judges], and a small [Sanhedrin] twenty-three [judges]. From where [do we derive] that the great [Sanhedrin] [comprises] seventy-one [judges]? As it says, (Numbers 11:16) \"gather for me seventy men from the elders of Israel,\" and Moses [set] over them, behold, [the number of judges adds to] seventy-one. Rabbi Yehudah says: seventy. And from where [do we derive] that a small [Sanhedrin] [comprises] twenty-three [judges]? As it says, (Numbers 35:24-25) \"the assembly shall judge... the assembly shall deliver.\" The assembly judges and the assembly delivers- behold [the number of judges adds to] twenty. From where [do we derive] that the assembly is ten? As it says, (Numbers 14:27) \"Until when shall I bear this wicked assembly.\" This excludes Joshua and Caleb. And from where [do we derive that we] add three more? This is implied by the [verse], as it says, (Exodus 23:2) \"Do not follow the many to do evil.\" Should I learn to follow them to do good? If so, why does it say (Exodus 23:2) \"Following the many to distort [justice]\" - your following to do good is not like your following to do evil. Following to do good [i.e. acquittal] is by one, following to do evil [i.e. conviction] is by two. Since a court cannot [contain an] even [number of members], we add [to the number of judges] one more- behold this is twenty-three. And how many [inhabitants] must a city have before it may have a Sanhedrin? One hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nechemiah says, two hundred and thirty, [each judge] corresponding to a chief of a group of ten."
+ ],
+ [
+ "The High Priest may judge and be judged [himself]; may testify and others may testify against him; may perform chalitzah [declination of levirate marriage] and others may perform chalitzah for his widow; and others may marry her through levirate marriage, but he may not marry another through levirate marriage, because he is forbidden to marry a widow. [When his relative] dies, he may not follow the bier; rather, when they are concealed [from his view] he may be present, and once they appear he must be concealed [from their view], and he may follow them [in this manner] until the opening [gates] of the city. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says, he may not leave from the Temple, as it says, (Leviticus 21:12) \"And from the Temple, he may not leave.\" When he comforts other [mourners], it is the custom that all the people pass by one after one, and the appointed [substitute High Priest] interposes himself between [the High Priest] and the people. When he is being comforted by others, all the people say to him, \"We are your atonement,\" and he says to them, \"From heaven shall you be blessed.\" And when he is fed in comfort, all the people sit on the ground, and he sits on the stool.",
+ "The king may not judge nor be judged himself; may not testify, nor may others testify against him; may not perform chalitzah, nor may others perform chalitzah for his wife; and may not marry through levirate marriage, nor may others marry his wife through levirate marriage. Rabbi Yehudah says, if he wishes to perform chalitzah or marry through Levirate marriage, he is remembered for good [i.e. it is meritorious]. [The Sages] said to him: We do not listen to [the king in this respect]. And none may marry his widow. Rabbi Yehudah says, a king may marry the widow of [another] king, for thus we find with respect to David, who married the widow of Saul, as it says (II Samuel 12:8), \"And I gave you the house of your master, and the wives of your master in your bosom.\"",
+ "[When his relative] dies, he may not go out from the opening of his palace. Rabbi Yehudah says, if he wishes to go out to follow the bier, he may, for thus we find with respect to David, for David went out to follow the bier of Abner, as it says, (II Samuel 3:31), \"And King David followed the bier.\" [The Sages] said to him: that matter was only done to appease the people. And when he is fed in comfort, all the people sit on the ground, and he sits on a couch.",
+ "[The King] may lead [the people] out to an optional war with the consent of the court of seventy-one. He can break through [private property] to build a road, and none may object. The king's road has no measure. And everything that the nation plunders, they place in front of him, and he takes the first portion. \"He may not amass too many wives\" (Deuteronomy 17:17), only eighteen. Rabbi Yehudah says, he may amass more, so long as they do not lead his heart astray. Rabbi Shimon says, even one who leads his heart astray he may not marry. If so, why does it say, (Deuteronomy 17:17) \"He may not amass too many wives\"? [This condition applies even if she is] like Abigail. \"He may not amass too many horses\" (Deuteronomy 17:16), only enough for his chariots. \"And excessive silver and gold he may not amass\" (Deuteronomy 17:17), only enough to pay his soldiers' wages. He must write a Torah scroll for himself. [When] he goes to war, he takes it out with him. [When] he enters, he brings it with him. [When] he sits in judgment, it is with him. [When] he sits [at a meal], it is opposite him, as it says, (Deuteronomy 17:16), \"And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life.\"",
+ "No one may ride his horse; and no one may sit on his throne; and no one may use his scepter; and no one may look at him while his hair is being cut, nor while he is nude, nor while he is in the bathhouse, as it says, (Deuteronomy 17:16) \"Set a king over yourself,\" [such that] his awe shall be over you."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Monetary cases [are judged] by three [judges]. One [litigant] selects one and the other selects one, and both select the additional one, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, the two judges choose the additional one. One [litigant] invalidates the judge of the other, and the other invalidates the judge of the one, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, when [may one party invalidate the judge selected by the other]? Only when evidence is brought that they are related [to the litigant] or otherwise invalid [may they be invalidated], but if they are acceptable or expert, they cannot be invalidated. One [litigant] invalidates the witness of the other, and the other invalidates the witness of the one, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, when [may one party invalidate the witness of the other]? Only when evidence is brought that they are related [to the litigant] or otherwise invalid [may they be invalidated], but if they are acceptable, they cannot be invalidated.",
+ "If one says to another: \"My father is trustworthy to me,\" or, \"Your father is trustworthy to me,\" or, \"Three herdsmen are trustworthy to me,\" Rabbi Meir says he may retract his statement. But the Sages say he may not retract. If one [litigant] were obligated to take an oath to the [other litigant] and said to him, \"Vow to me by the life of your head,\" Rabbi Meir says he may retract his statement. But the Sages say he may not retract.",
+ "These are invalid: dice-players, usurers, pigeon-flyers, and sellers of Sabbatical goods. Rabbi Shimon says, previously they were called gatherers of Sabbatical goods, but because of tax-collectors, they became known as sellers of Sabbatical goods. Rabbi Yehudah says, when [are these invalid]? When they have no other trade; but when they have another trade, they are acceptable.",
+ "And these are the relatives [disqualified from testifying or judging]: his father, his brother, his father's brother, his mother's brother, his sister's husband, his father's sister's husband, his mother's sister's husband, his step-father, his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law [his wife's sister's husband], these and their sons and sons-in-law; and his step-son alone. Rabbi Yose said, this is the teaching of Rabbi Akiva. But the original teaching [said]: his uncle, and the son of his uncle, all his potential heirs, and anyone related to him at that time. One who used to be related to him but is no longer- behold, he is acceptable. Rabbi Yehudah says, even if his daughter dies, and [his son-in-law] had children with her- behold, [the daughter's widowed husband] is a relation.",
+ "[These are also invalid]: the friend and the enemy. The friend, this is a groomsman. The enemy, this is anyone who has not spoken with [the litigant] for three days from hatred. [The Sages] said to him: Israel is not suspected of this.",
+ "How do they examine the witnesses? They would bring them in and instill fear in them. Then they would send every man outside, but keep the eldest among them and say to him: \"Say how you know that the one owes the other.\" If he says, \"He told me, 'I owe him,'\" or, \"So-and-so told me that he owes him\" - this means nothing. Only if he says, \"In front of us, he told him that he owes him two hundred zuz\" [is his testimony meaningful]. After this, they would bring in the second [witness] and examine him. If they find that their words are aligned, [the judges] deliberate on the matter. [If] two say innocent and one says guilty, [the verdict is] innocent. Two say guilty and one says innocent, [the verdict is] guilty. One says innocent and one says guilty, or even if the two acquit or the two convict and one says he does not know, they add [more] judges.",
+ "When the matter is finished, they bring in [the litigants]. The greatest of the judges says, \"So-and-so, you are innocent,\" or, \"So-and-so, you are guilty.\" And from where [do we derive that] when one of the judges leaves he may not say, \"I acquitted him and my fellows convicted him, but what was I to do, as my fellows were in the majority.\" Regarding this it is said, \"Do not go about as a talebearer among your people,\" (Leviticus 19:16) and it says, \"He who gossips reveals secrets.\" (Proverbs 11:13)",
+ "Each time [a litigant] brings evidence [anew], he overturns the [previous] verdict. [If] they said to him: \"All evidence that you have, bring it here within thirty days.\" If he finds [evidence] within thirty days, it overturns [the previous verdict]. After thirty days, it does not overturn. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, what could he have done, for he did not find [evidence] within thirty days, but [only] after thirty days! [If] they said to him, \"Bring witnesses,\" and he says, \"I have no witnesses\"; [or] they say to him, \"Bring evidence,\" and he says, \"I have no evidence\"; and after a time he brings evidence or finds witnesses, behold this means nothing. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, what could he have done, for he did not know that he had witnesses and [only later] found witnesses, [or] he did not know that he had evidence and [only later] found evidence! [If] they said to him, \"Bring witnesses\" and he says, \"I have no witnesses\"; or [they say,] \"Bring evidence,\" and he says, \"I have no evidence\"; and he sees that he will be convicted and says, \"Come near so-and-so and so-and-so, and testify for me,\" or he found evidence from his wallet, behold this means nothing."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Both monetary and capital cases have examination and inquiry, as it is written (Leviticus 24:22) \"You shall have one justice.\" What is the difference between monetary cases and capital cases: monetary cases[are tried] with three [judges], and capital cases, with twenty-three. Monetary cases are opened either [with arguments] to acquit or to convict, and capital cases open [with arguments] to acquit but do not open [with arguments] to convict. Monetary cases are decided by one either to acquit or to convict; capital cases are decided by one to acquit or by two to convict. In monetary cases, [the verdict] can change between acquittal and conviction; in capital cases [the verdict] can change to acquittal but cannot change to conviction. In monetary cases, all can rule for acquittal or conviction; in capital cases, all can rule for acquittal but all cannot rule for conviction. In monetary cases, one who convicts can acquit and one who acquits can convict; in capital cases, one who convicts can acquit, but one who acquits cannot turn and convict. Monetary cases can be tried in the day and can finish in the night; capital cases are tried in the day and must finish in the day. Monetary cases finish on the same day for either acquittal or conviction; capital cases finish on the same day for acquittal and the next day for conviction, therefore there cannot be trials on Friday evening or the evening before a holiday.",
+ "Cases of impurity and purity begin from the greatest [judge], cases of life begin from [the judges on] the side. All are acceptable to judge in cases of money, but none are acceptable to judge in cases of life except for priests, Levites, and Israelites whose daughters can marry priests.",
+ "The Sanhedrin [highest court, charged with deciding cases and appeals that had national significance. It was comprised of 71 scholars who had received the full traditional rabbinical ordination, and its decisions fixed Jewish practice for subsequent generations.]was [organized like] half of a round granary, so that each (judge) could see each [judge]. Two court scribes stood before them, one on the right and one on the left, and they wrote the words of the acquitting [defense] and the words of the convicting [prosecution]. Rabbi Yehudah says, (there were) three, one wrote the words of the acquitting and one wrote the words of the convicting, and the third wrote the words of the acquitting and the words of the convicting.",
+ "And three rows of students sit before them, each one knows his [proper] place. [When] there was a need to appoint [a new judge], they appointed from the first [row]. One from the second [row] comes to the first, and one from the third [row] comes to the second, and they choose for them one more [student] from the community who is seated in the third [row]. He didn't sit in the place of the first [student], but rather he sits in the place seen for him.",
+ "How do we press the witnesses in a capital case? We bring them in [to the court's chambers] and press them: \"Perhaps what you say [isn't eyewitness testimony] is but your own assessment, or from rumors, or your witnessing an actual witness testify, or your reporting what a trustworthy said. Or perhaps you were unaware that by the end we'd interrogate you, with examination and inquiry. Know that capital cases are not like monetary ones. In monetary cases, [a false witness] can return the money and achieve atonement. But in capital cases, the blood of [the victim [and all his future offspring hang upon you until the end of time. For thus we find in regard to Cain, who killed his brother, \"The bloods of your brother scream out!\" (Genesis 4:10) - the verse does not say blood of your brother, but bloods of your brother, because it was his blood and also the blood of his future offspring [screaming out]! [Another explanation of the verse: for his blood was splattered over the trees and rocks [there was more than one pool of blood]. [The judges' speech continues] \"It was for this reason that man was first created as one person [Adam], to teach you that anyone who destroys a life is considered by Scripture to have destroyed an entire world; and anyone who saves a life is as if he saved an entire world.\" And also, to promote peace among the creations, that no man would say to his friend, \"My ancestors are greater than yours.\" And also, so that heretics will not say, \"there are many rulers up in Heaven.\" And also, to express the grandeur of The Holy One [blessed be He]: For a man strikes many coins from the same die, and all the coins are alike. But the King, the King of Kings, The Holy One [blessed be He] strikes every man from the die of the First Man, and yet no man is quite like his friend. Therefore, every person must say, “For my sake the world was created.” [The judges' speech continues:] \"Maybe you [the witnesses] will now say, 'What do we need this, and all this anxiety for [let's not come forward even with true testimony]!' But Scripture has already spoken: \"If he be a witness - having seen or known - if he does not express it, he shall bear his sin.\" (Lev. 5:1) Maybe you will now say, 'What do we need this, to be responsible for another man's death?' But Scripture has already spoken: \"When the wicked are destroyed there is rejoicing.\" (Prov. 11:10)\""
+ ],
+ [
+ "They would examine [the witnesses] with seven inquiries: \"In which week?\", \"In which year?\", \"In which month?\", \"On which day of the month?\", \"On which day [of the week]?\", \"At which hour?\", and, \"In which place?\". Rabbi Yose says: \"On which day?\", \"At which hour?\", \"In which place?\", \"Do you recognize him?\", \"Did you warn him?\". For one who worships idols: Whom [i.e. which idol] did he worship?\", \"How did he worship it?\".",
+ "The more one examines [the witnesses], the more he is praiseworthy. Once, Ben Zakkai examined regarding the stalks of figs. What is the difference between inquiries and examinations? [If in response to] inquiries one [witness] says, \"I do not know,\" their testimony is nullified. [If in response to] examinations one [witness] says, \"I do not know,\" and even if two say, \"We do not know,\" their testimony stands. Both [with respect to] inquiries and examinations, when [the two witnesses' responses] contradict one another, their testimony is nullified.",
+ "[If] one [witness] says, \"on the second of the month,\" and one says, \"on the third of the month,\" their testimony stands, since one is aware of the intercalation of the month, and the other is unaware of the intercalation of the month. [If] one says, \"on the third\" and one says, \"on the fifth,\" their testimony is nullified. [If] one says, \"at the second hour,\" and one says, \"at the third hour,\" their testimony stands. [If] one says, \"at the third hour\" and one says, \"at the fifth hour,\" their testimony is nullified. Rabbi Yehudah says, it stands. One says, \"at the fifth hour\" and one says, \"at the seventh hour,\" their testimony is nullified, since at the fifth [hour], the sun is in the east; whereas at the seventh [hour], the sun is in the west.",
+ "After, they bring in the second [witness] and examine him. If it is found that their words are aligned, they open with [arguments for] acquittal. If one of the witnesses says, \"I have something to say on acquittal,\" or one of the students says, \"I have something to say on conviction,\" they silence him. If one of the students says, \"I have something to say on acquittal,\" they raise him up and seat him among them; and he would not descend from there the whole day. If his words have substance, they listen to him. And even if [the accused] says, \"I have something to say on my own acquittal,\" they listen to him, but only if his words have substance.",
+ "If they found him innocent, they dismiss him. If not, they move his judgment to the next day. They would go together, pair by pair; and they would decrease [the amount of] food [they would eat]; and they would drink no wine all day; and they would deliberate all night; and on the morrow, early, they would rise and come to the court. The [judge arguing] to acquit says, \"I [argued to] acquit and my [opinion remains] in place\"; and the [judge arguing] to convict says, \"I [argued to] convict and my [opinion remains] in place.\" One who has offered an argument to convict may [subsequently] offer an argument to acquit, but one who has offered an argument to acquit may not retract [and subsequently] offer an argument to convict. If they had erred, the two judicial scribes remind them. If they found him innocent, they dismiss him. If not, they stand to vote. [If] twelve acquit and eleven convict, he is acquitted. If twelve convict and eleven acquit; and even if eleven acquit, eleven convict, and one says, \"I do not know\"; or even if twenty-two acquit or convict and one says \"I do not know,\" they add [more] judges. How many do they add? [They add judges] two at a time until there are seventy-one. [If] thirty-six acquit and thirty-five convict, he is acquitted. [If] thirty-six convict and thirty-five acquit, the judges argue one against another until one [judge] from those who voted to convict is convinced by the words of those who voted to acquit."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b26c179e6b622702a210cb167a561152c4423d0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+ "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "CC0",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [
+ "Cross-examination of [witnesses] [occurs] in both monetary cases and capital cases, as it says, (Leviticus 24:22) \"You shall have one [i.e. the same] law.\" What is the difference between monetary cases and capital cases? Monetary cases [are tried] by three [judges], whereas capital cases by twenty-three. Monetary cases commence either [with arguments] to acquit or to render liable; whereas capital cases commence [with arguments] to acquit, but do not commence [with arguments] to convict. Monetary cases are decided by [a majority of] one, whether to acquit or to render liable; whereas capital cases are decided by [a majority of] one to acquit, but by [a majority of] two to convict. [In] monetary cases, [the verdict] may be reversed, whether to acquit or to render liable; whereas [in] capital cases, [the verdict] may be reversed to acquit, but may not be reversed to convict. [In] monetary cases, all may offer arguments to acquit or to render liable; [whereas in] capital cases, all may offer arguments to acquit, but not all may offer arguments to convict. [In] monetary cases, one who has offered an argument to render liable may [subsequently] offer an argument to acquit, and one who has offered an argument to acquit may [subsequently] offer an argument to render liable; whereas in capital cases, one who has offered an argument to convict may [subsequently] offer an argument to acquit, but one who has offered an argument to acquit may not retract [and subsequently] offer an argument to convict. Monetary cases are tried in the day and may be completed at night; whereas capital cases are tried in the day and must be completed during the day. Monetary cases are completed on the same day [as they were started], whether to acquit or to render liable; whereas capital cases may be completed on the same day [as they were started] [if the verdict is] to acquit, but [must be completed] on the next day [if the verdict is] to convict. Therefore, [cases] are not tried on the eve of the Sabbath nor on the eve of a festival.",
+ "Cases of impurity and purity begin [with arguments] from the greatest [judge]; [whereas] capital cases begin with [with arguments] from [the judges seated] on the side. Everyone is acceptable [i.e. qualified] to judge monetary cases, whereas not everyone is acceptable [i.e. qualified] to judge capital cases. Rather, [only] priests, Levites, and [ordinary] Jews whose daughters may marry into the priesthood [are qualified to judge].",
+ "The Sanhedrin was [organized in the shape of a] semi-circular granary, so that every [judge] could see one another. Two court scribes stand before them, one on the right and one on the left, and they write the words of [judges arguing to] acquit and the words of [judges arguing to] convict. Rabbi Yehudah says, [there were] three; one writing the words of the [judges arguing to] acquit, one writing the words of the [judges arguing to] convict, and the third writing the words of [both] [the judges arguing to] acquit and words of the [judges arguing to] convict.",
+ "And three rows of students sit before them, each recognizing his [proper] place. [When] they need to appoint [a new judge], they appoint [a student] from the first [row]. One [student] from the second [row] comes [i.e. moves up] to the first, and one [student] from the third [row] comes [i.e. moves up] to the second; and they select one more [student] from the community and seat him in the third [row]. He would not sit in the place of the original [student, whom he had replaced], but rather sits in the place appropriate for him.",
+ "How do they instill fear [into the witnesses] in capital cases? They would bring them in and instill fear in them, [saying:] Lest you [offer testimony that includes] inductive inference, rumor, [information heard] from another witness, [or claim,] 'we heard [this] from a trustworthy individual,' or lest you did not know that we will interrogate you with cross-examination; you should know that capital cases are unlike monetary cases. [In] monetary cases, an individual pays money and attains atonement. [However, in] capital cases, [the accused's] blood and the blood of his [potential] offspring until eternity are dependent on [the case's outcome]. For thus do we find with respect to Cain, who killed his brother, as it says, (Genesis 4:10) \"the bloods of your brother call out\"; it does not say \"the blood of your brother,\" but rather \"the bloods of your brother\"- his blood and the blood of his [potential] offspring. Another explanation [of the plural form]: \"the bloods of your brother\"- for his blood was splattered cast upon the trees and rocks. It was for this reason that man was created unique, to teach you that anyone who destroys one life from the Jewish people is considered by Scripture to have destroyed an entire world; and anyone who saves one life from the Jewish people is as if he saved an entire world. And also, to promote peace among people, that no one will say to his fellow, \"My ancestors are greater than yours.\" And also, so that sectarians will not say, \"There are many powers in Heaven.\" And also, to express the grandeur of The Holy One blessed be He: For a man strikes many coins from the same die, and all the coins are alike; whereas the King, the King of Kings, The Holy One blessed be He struck every man from the die of the First Man [Adam], and yet no man is quite like his fellow. Therefore, every person is obligated to say, \"For me the world was created.\" And lest you say, \"Why must we go through all this trouble?\" has it not already been said (Leviticus 5:1), \"he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he do not utter it, etc.\" And lest you say, \"Why must we [testify and thereby] be responsible for the [loss] of this person's life? has it not already been said, (Proverbs 11:10) \"And when the wicked perish, there is joy.\""
+ ],
+ [],
+ [
+ "Once the verdict is reached, they bring him out to stone him. The stoning area was outside the courthouse, as it says, (Leviticus 24:14) \"Bring out he who has cursed.\" One would stand before the entrance to the courthouse, his scarf in his hand; and another would ride on a horse before them at a distance, in order to see him. [If] one says, \"I have an argument for acquittal,\" then he waves the scarf, and the horse runs to stop him. And even if [the accused] says, \"I have an argument for my [own] acquittal,\" then he is returned; and this may happen even four or five times, so long as there is substance to his words. If he is acquitted, he is dismissed; and if not, he is brought out to be stoned. And an announcer comes out before him and announces, \"So-and-so son of so-and-so is being brought out to be stoned for having committed such-and-such transgression, and so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who has any knowledge as to his innocence should come and argue for him.\"",
+ "[Once the accused] was about ten cubit from the stoning area, they say to him, \"Confess,\" for such is the way of those sentenced to death to confess, for all who confess have a share in the World to Come. For thus we find with respect to Achan, to whom Joshua said, (Joshua 7:19) \"'My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the LORD, the God of Israel, and make confession unto Him.'... And Achan answered Joshua, and said: 'Of a truth I have sinned against the LORD, the God of Israel.'\" And from where [do we know] that his confession atoned for him? As it says, (Joshua 7:25), \"And Joshua said: 'Why hast thou troubled us? the Lord shall trouble thee this day,'\" today you are troubled, but you are not troubled in the World to Come. And if he does not know how to confess, they say to him: \"Say, 'May my death serve as an atonement for all my iniquities.'\" Rabbi Yehudah says, if he knows he was [convicted by] false testimony, he says, \"May my death serve as an atonement for all my iniquities, excepting this iniquity.\" [The Sages] said to him, if so, all [sentenced to death] will say this in order to cleanse themselves [i.e. clear their name].",
+ "[Once] he was four cubits from the stoning area, they remove his clothing. [If it is] a man, his front is covered; [if it is] a woman, her front and her back are covered, according to Rabbi Yehudah. But the Sages say, a man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked.",
+ "The stoning area's height was that of two men. One of the witnesses pushes him on his loins. If he is turned on his heart, they turn him [over,] on his loins. If he dies from this, [the court] has discharged [its obligation]. If not, the second [witness] picks up the stone and puts it on his heart. If he dies from this, [the court] has discharged [its obligation]. If not, he is pelted with stones by all of Israel, as it says, (Deuteronomy 17:7) \"The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.\" All who are stoned are hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, the only [offenders] who are hanged are the blasphemer and the idolator. A man is hanged with his face toward the people, and a woman with her face toward the gallows, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, a man is hanged, but a woman is not hanged. Rabbi Eliezer said to them, Did Shimon ben Shetach not hang women in Ashkelon? They said to him, he hanged eighty women, and we do not [even] judge two [capital cases] in one day! How do they hang him? They sink the beam into the ground, and [a piece of] wood protrudes from it, and one places his hands together, and hangs him. Rabbi Yose says, the beam leans on a wall, and they hang him the way that butchers do. And then they undo him [from the gallows] immediately. If he stayed there overnight, [the court] violates a negative commandment on his account, as it says, (Deuteronomy 21:23), \"His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt surely bury him the same day; for he that is hanged is a reproach unto God....\" That is to say: why has he been hanged? Because he 'blessed' [i.e. cursed] God, and God's name has become desecrated.",
+ "Said Rabbi Meir, when a human being is in distress, what expression does the Divine Presence use, as it were? \"My head is in pain, My arm is in pain.\" If so, the Omnipresent feels distress over the blood of the wicked that is spilled; how much more so [does He] over the blood of the righteous. And furthermore, anyone who leaves a dead body hanging overnight transgresses a negative commandment. But if one leaves a body hanging overnight for the sake of its honor, to bring it a coffin or shroud, he does not transgress [a negative commandment]. And such a body [i.e. that of one stoned to death] would not be buried in the grave of his ancestors. Rather, two grave-sites were set for the courthouse, one for those put to death by decapitation and strangulation, and one for those put to death by stoning and burning.",
+ "When the flesh decomposed, they collect the bones and bury them in their proper place. And the relatives come and greet the judges and the witnesses, as if to say, we hold nothing against you, since [we know that] your verdict was just. And they would not [observe rituals of] mourn[ing], but they would grieve, since grief is only in the heart."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Four [forms] of capital punishment were given over to the courts: stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation. Rabbi Shimon says, burning, stoning, strangulation, and decapitation. This is the law [i.e. procedure] concerning those to be stoned.",
+ "The law [i.e. procedure] concerning those to be burned [is as follows]: They would set him into manure up to his knees, and put a stiff scarf inside a soft one, and wrap it around his neck. One would pull [one end] towards him and one would pull [the other end] towards him, until he [who was being executed] opened his mouth. Then [one] would light a wick and throw it into his mouth, and it would descend into his bowels and burn his entrails. Rabbi Yehudah says, if he died by their hands [e.g. were he strangled by the cloth], they would not have fulfilled the commandment of [execution by] burning; rather [the procedure should be carried out as follows]: they open his mouth with pincers by force, and light the wick, and throw it into his mouth, and it would descend into his bowels and burn his entrails. Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok said, there was once a priest's daughter who committed adultery; they placed bundles of branches around her and burned her. The [Sages] said to him, [this happened] because the court at that time was not expert.",
+ "The law [i.e. procedure] concerning those to be decapitated [is as follows]: they would cut off his head with a sword as the government does. Rabbi Yehudah says, this is disgraceful; rather [the procedure should be carried out as follows]: they rest his head on a block and cut it with a hatchet. The [Sages] said to him, there is no death more disgraceful than that. The law [i.e. procedure] concerning those to be strangled [is as follows]: They would set him into manure up to his knees, and put a stiff scarf inside a soft one, and wrap it around his neck. One would pull [one end] towards him and one would pull [the other end] towards him, until his soul departed.",
+ "These are [executed by] stoning: [a male] who sleeps with his mother, with the wife of his father, with his daughter-in-law, with a male, [or] with an animal; a woman who causes an animal to sleep with her; the blasphemer; the idolater; one who gives of his children to Molekh [a particular form of idolatry], the ba'al 'ov [necromancer] and yid'oni [soothsayer]; one who desecrates the Sabbath; one who curses his father or mother; one who sleeps with a betrothed maiden; the mesit [one who entices an individual to commit idolatry]; the mediach [one who entices a city to commit idolatry]; the sorcerer; and the wayward and rebellious son. One who sleeps with his mother - [he] is liable [for violating two prohibitions, for the prohibition of sleeping with his] mother and for [the prohibition of sleeping with] his father's wife. Rabbi Yehudah says, he is only liable for [sleeping with] his mother. One who sleeps with his father's wife- [he] is liable for his father's wife and for a married woman, whether [the act occurs] in his father's lifetime or after his father's death, whether [she is his father's wife] through betrothal or through completed marriage. One who sleeps with his daughter-in-law- [he] is liable for his daughter-in-law and for a married woman, whether in his sons's lifetime or after his son's death, whether [she is his son's wife] through betrothal or through completed marriage. One who sleeps with a male or with an animal, or a woman who causes an animal to sleep with her- [even] if a person has sinned, how has the animal sinned [such that it also receives execution by stoning]? Rather, since [the animal] caused a person to commit an offense, Scripture therefore said, [the animal] should be stoned. Another explanation: [the animal is stoned] so that the animal not be passing through the market-place and [lead people to] say, \"This is the one that caused so-and-so to be stoned.\"",
+ "The blasphemer - [he] is not liable until he [explicitly] utters the name [of God]. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah said, every day the witnesses testify using a substitute name [in place of the actual Divine Name uttered by the blasphemer]: \"May Yossi smite Yossi.\" Once the verdict has been reached, they would not execute [the defendant] [on the basis of testimony] using a substitute name. Rather, [the judges] send everyone outside, and inquire of the greatest [witness] among them, saying to him: \"State explicitly what you heard,\" and he states [the blasphemy verbatim]. And the judges stand upon their feet and rend [their clothing]. And they may not [ever] mend [the rended clothing]. And the second [witness] says, \"I also [heard] like him,\" and the third [witness] says, \"I also [heard] like him.\"",
+ "The idolator - [this includes the following:] one who worships, sacrifices, offers incense, pours libations, bows, accepts it as a god, and one who says to it, \"You are my god.\" But one who embraces, kisses, sweeps, sprinkles, washes, anoints, dresses, or puts shoes on it, [merely] transgresses a negative commandment [that does not warrant capital punishment]. One who takes a vow in its name or takes an oath in its name [merely] transgresses a negative commandment [that does not warrant capital punishment]. One who relieves himself to Ba'al Be'or [is liable, for] such is its worship. One who throws a stone at Merkulis [is liable, for] such is its worship. ",
+ "One who gives of his children to Molekh - he is not liable until he gives over [the child] to Molekh and passes [the child] through the fire. [If he] gave over [the child] to Molekh, but did not pass [the child] through the fire; [or he] passed [the child] through the fire, but did not give [the child] over to Molekh, the man is not liable; [for he is not liable] until he gives over [the child] and passes [the child] through the fire. A ba'al 'ov- this is the magician who [causes the dead] to speak from his armpit; a yid'oni- this is the one who [causes the dead] to speak through his own mouth. These are executed by stoning, and one who consults them is [merely liable for] a negative commandment [that does not warrant capital punishment].",
+ "One who desecrates the Sabbath- through an act for which a wanton violation renders him liable to spiritual excision, and a violation in error obligates him [to sacrifice] a sin-offering. One who curses his mother or father- he is not liable unless he curses them using the name [of God]. If he curses them using a substitute name, Rabbi Meir [maintains he is] liable, but the Sages exempt him.",
+ "One who sleeps with a betrothed maiden- he is not liable unless she is a maiden, a virgin, betrothed, and in her father's household. If two sleep with her, the first is [executed] by stoning, and the second is [executed] by strangulation.",
+ "The mesit - this is a layman who entices a layman, saying to him, \"There is a deity in such-and-such place; it eats thus, it drinks thus, it does good thus, it does evil thus.\" [Regarding] all [transgressions that] incur capital punishment in the Torah, we do not conceal [witnesses to coax the defendant into transgressing], except for this one. If he said [i.e. enticed] to two, they are his witnesses, and they bring him to court and stone him. If he said to one, [the witness] says, \"I have friends who are interested.\" If [the mesit] is cunning and cannot speak before them, they conceal witnesses behind the fence, and [the original witness] says to [the mesit], \"Say [again] what you said to me in seclusion.\" [If] this one [the mesit] says it to him, [the witness] says, \"How can we forsake our God in Heaven and go and worship wood and stone!\" If [the mesit] retracts, all is good [i.e. he is not culpable]. [But] if he says, \"This is our obligation and this is good for us,\" those standing behind the fence bring him to court and stone him. One who says [any of the following is liable as a mesit:], \"I will serve\"; \"I will go and I will serve\"; \"we will go and we will serve\"; \"I will sacrifice\"; \"I will go and I will sacrifice\"; \"we will go and we will sacrifice\"; \"I will offer incense\"; \"I will go and I will offer incense\"; \"we will go and we will offer incense\"; \"I will pour libations\"; \"I will go and I will pour libations\"; \"we will go and we will pour libations,\" \"I will bow\"; \"I will go and I will bow\"; \"we will go and we will bow.\" The mediach - this is one who says, \"We will go and we will worship idols.\"",
+ "The sorcerer - if he does an act of sorcery, he is liable, but not one who [merely] tricks the eyes. Rabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua, two people harvesting cucumbers, one harvests and is liable, while the other harvests and is exempt. The one who [gathers the cucumbers through] an act of sorcery is liable, [while] the one who [gathers cucumbers in the natural manner and merely] tricks the eyes is exempt."
+ ],
+ [
+ "A wayward and rebellious son- at what time can he become a wayward and rebellious son? From when he grows two hairs until the beard grows full. [This refers to] the lower beard, not the upper beard, [but this expression is used] since the Sages spoke in clean language. As it says, (Deuteronomy 21:18) \"If a man have a son\": \"a son,\" and not a daughter; \"a son,\" and not a man. A minor is exempt, for he has not entered the category of [those obligated in] the commandments.",
+ "From when is he liable [to be stoned]? When he eats a tarteimar of meat and drinks half a log [ measure of liquid] of Italian wine. Rabbi Yosi says, a maneh [equal to one hundred zuz] of meat and a log of wine. [If] he ate [it] in a mitzvah gathering; [if] he ate [it] in [celebration of] the intercalation of the month; [if] he ate [it] as ma'aser sheni [the second tithe, which must be eaten in Jerusalem] in Jerusalem; [if] he ate nevelot [an animal not properly slaughtered] or terefot [a mortally wounded animal] or creepy crawlies; [if he ate] tevel [untithed produce] or ma'aser rishon [the first tithe] from which terumah [the portion given to the priest] has not been taken; or ma'aser sheni or hekdesh that has not been redeemed; [if] he ate something [in fulfillment of] a commandment or something [in violation of] a transgression; [or if] he ate all foods but did not eat meat; [or] drank all drinks but did not drink wine, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son, until he eats meat and drinks wine. As it says, (Deuteronomy 21:20) \"He is a glutton and a drunkard.\" And even though there is no proof to the matter [from a Scriptural verse], there is a reference to the matter, as it says, (Proverbs 23:20) \"Be not among winebibbers, among gluttonous eaters of flesh.\"",
+ "If he stole from his father and ate in his father's domain; [if he stole] from others and ate in others' domain; [if he stole] from others and ate in his father's domain, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son, until he steals from his father and eats in others' domain. Rabbi Yosi bar Yehudah says, until he steals from his father and from his mother.",
+ "If his father wants [to bring the son to court] and his mother does not want, [or if] his father does not want and his mother does want, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son, until they both want. Rabbi Yehudah says, if the mother were not appropriate for the father, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son. If one of [the parents] had a hand cut off, or was lame, mute, blind, or deaf-mute, he does not become a wayward and rebellious son. As it says, (Deuteronomy 21:19) \"Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him,\" and not those whose hands have been cut off. \"And bring him out,\" and not a lame person. (Deuteronomy 21:20) \"And they shall say,\" and not mute people. \"This our son,\" and not blind people. \"He does not listen to our voice,\" and not deaf-mute people. They warn him in front of three and lash him. If he repeats his misdeeds, he is judged by a court of twenty-three. And he is not stoned until the original three [judges] are present, as it says (Deuteronomy 21:20), \"This our son,\" he who was lashed before you. If he flees before the verdict has been reached and then his lower beard grows full, he is exempt. But if once the verdict was reached he fled, and then his lower beard grew full, he is [still] liable.",
+ "The wayward and rebellious son is judged on the basis of his end. He should die innocent and not liable, because the death of the wicked is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world; but for the righteous, it is bad for them and bad for the world. Wine and sleep: for the wicked they are a benefit to them and a benefit for the world; but for the righteous, they are bad for them and bad for the world. Being scattered: for the wicked it is a benefit to them and to the world; but for the righteous, it is bad for them and bad for the world. Being gathered: for the wicked it is bad for them and bad for the world; but for the righteous, it is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world. Quiet: for the wicked it is bad for them and bad for the world; but for the righteous, it is beneficial for them and beneficial to the world.",
+ "[A thief] who comes through a tunnel [into one's house] is judged on the basis of his end. If he came through a tunnel and broke a jug: if he has blood-guilt, he is liable; if he does not have blood-guilt, he is exempt.",
+ "These may be saved [from transgression] with their lives [i.e. by killing them]: one who pursues his fellow to kill him, and [one who pursues] a male or a betrothed maiden [to rape them]. But one who pursues an animal [to commit bestiality], and one who [intends] to desecrate the Sabbath, and one who [intends] to worship idols, one may not save them with their lives."
+ ],
+ [
+ "And these are [executed by] burning: one who sleeps with with a woman and her daughter, and a priest's daughter who commits adultery. Included in the [prohibition] of \"a woman and her daughter\" are: his daughter, his daughter's daughter, his son's daughter, his wife's daughter, her daughter's daughter, his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. And these are [executed by] decapitation: a murderer and the occupants of a wayward city [a city whose inhabitants are mostly idolatrous Jews]. A murderer who struck his neighbor with stone or iron, or held him down into water or into fire such that he is unable to ascend from there, and [the victim] dies—he is liable. [If he] pushed him into water or into fire such that he is able to ascend from there, and he dies—he is exempt. [If he] set a dog on him or he set a snake on him, he is exempt. [If he] caused the snake to bite him, Rabbi Yehudah maintains he is liable, and the Sages maintain he is exempt. One who strikes his fellow, whether with a stone or with his fist, and they evaluated that the victim will die, and [his condition] improved from what it was, then later it became more severe, and he dies—he is liable. Rabbi Nechemiah says, he is exempt, because there is a basis for the matter [i.e. the claim that his death did not result from the blow].",
+ "[If one] intended to kill an animal and killed a person; [or intended to kill] a non-Jew and killed a Jew; [or intended to kill] a fetus that was not viable and killed a viable fetus, he is exempt. [If he] intended to strike another on his loins, without enough [strength] to kill him [by striking] his loins, and the blow hit him on his heart with enough strength to kill him, and he died, he is exempt. [If he] intended to strike another on his heart, with enough strength to kill him on his heart, and the blow hit him on his loins, without enough strength to kill him on his loins, and he died, he is exempt. [If he] intended to strike an adult, without enough strength to kill an adult, and the blow landed on a minor, with enough strength to kill a minor, and he died, he is exempt. [If he] intended to strike a minor, with enough strength to kill a minor, and the blow landed on an adult, without enough strength to kill an adult, and he died, he is exempt. However, [if he] intended to strike another on his loins with enough strength to kill him on his loins, and the blow landed on his heart, and he died, he is liable. [Similarly, if he] intended to strike an adult, with enough strength to kill an adult, and the blow landed on a minor, and he died, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon says, even [if he] intended to kill this one, and he killed that one, he is exempt.",
+ "[If] a murderer became mixed into a [group of] other people, they are all exempt. Rabbi Yehudah says, they bring them into the dome [a jail]. [If] many people mix with one another, [all of whom] are liable for execution, they are [all] executed with the least severe [form of execution]. [If] those who are to be stoned become mixed up with those who are to be burned, Rabbi Shimon says, they are to be stoned, since burning is the more severe. And the Sages say, they are to be burned, since stoning is the more severe. Rabbi Shimon said to them, if burning were not the more severe, it would not be given [as punishment] to a priest's daughter who committed adultery! They said to him, if stoning were not the more severe, it would not be given to to the blasphemer and the idolator! [If] those to be decapitated become mixed with those to be strangled, Rabbi Shimon says, [they are to be executed] with a sword [i.e. decapitated]. And the Sages say, by strangulation.",
+ "One who is liable for two [forms of] execution is given the more severe. [If] he commits a transgression which incurs two death penalties, he is given given the more severe. Rabbi Yosi says, he is given [the one that accords with] the first obligation that comes upon him [i.e. he is given the form of execution warranted by the first transgression he committed].",
+ "One who is lashed [as punishment for a transgression] and then repeats [that transgression], the court puts him in the dome and feeds him barley until his stomach bursts. One who kills someone in the absence of witnesses, they put him in the dome and feed him sparing bread and scant water.",
+ "One who steals a kasvah [a vessel for use in the Temple]; one who curses [God] by enchantment; and one who sleeps with an Aramean woman—zealots may attack him. A priest who served while ritually impure, his fellow priests do not bring him to the court. Rather, the young priests take him outside the Temple courtyard, and split his skull with logs. A non-priest who served in the Temple: Rabbi Akiva says, [he is executed] by strangulation; and the Sages say, [his is executed] by Heaven's hands [and not by the court]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "All Jews have a share in the World to Come, as it says, (Isaiah 60:21), “Thy people are all righteous; they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.” These have no share in the World to Come: One who says that [the belief of] resurrection of the dead is not from the Torah, [one who says that] that the Torah is not from Heaven, and one who denigrates the Torah. Rabbi Akiva says: also one who reads outside books, and one who whispers [an incantation] over a wound, saying, (Exodus 15:26) “I will bring none of these diseases upon thee that I brought upon the Egyptians for I am the Lord that healeth thee.” Abba Shaul says, also one who utters the Divine Name as it is spelled.",
+ "Three kings and four commoners have no share in the World to Come. The three kings are: Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh. Rabbi Yehudah says, Manasseh does have a share in the World to Come, as it says (II Chronicles 33:13), \"And [Manasseh] prayed unto Him; and He was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom.\" [The Sages] said to him, to his kingdom He brought him back, but He did not bring him back to life in the World to Come. The four commoners are: Balaam, Doeg, Achitophel, and Gehazi.",
+ "The generation of the Flood has no share in the World to Come, nor will it stand in judgment, as it is says, (Genesis 6:3) \"My spirit shall not abide [yadon] in man forever,\" neither judgment [din] not spirit. The generation of Division has no share in the World to Come, as it is says, (Genesis 11:8) \"So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth.\" \"So the Lord scattered them,\" in this world; (Genesis 11:9) \"and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad\" in the World to Come. The people of Sodom have no share in the World to Come, as it says, (Genesis 13:13) \"Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the Lord exceedingly.\" \"Wicked\" in this world, \"and sinners\" in the World to Come. But they will stand in judgment. Rabbi Nechemiah says , neither will stand in judgment, as it says, (Psalms 1:5) \"Therefore the wicked shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.\" \"Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment,\" this is the generation of the Flood; \"nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous,\" this is the people of Sodom. [The Sages] said to him, they will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked. The spies have no share in the World to Come, as it says, (Numbers 14:37) \"Even those men that did bring up an evil report of the land, died by the plague before the Lord.\" \"Died,\" in this world; \"in the plague,\" in the World to Come. The generation of the wilderness has no share in the World to Come and will not stand in judgment, as it is written, (Numbers 14:35) \"In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die,\" according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says, about them [the verse] says, (Psalms 50:5) \"Gather My saints together unto Me; Those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice.\" The congregation of Korah will not ascend in the future, as it says, (Numbers 16:33) \"and the earth closed upon them,\" in this world; \"and they perished from among the assembly,\" in the World to Come, according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says, about them [the verse] says, (I Samuel 2:6) \"The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; He bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.\" The Ten Tribes will not return in the future, as it says, (Deuteronomy 29:27) \"[God] will cast them into another land, as it is this day.\" Just as this day goes and does not return, so too, they will go and will not return, according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says, just as the day grows dark and [then] grows light; so too, the Ten Tribes, for whom it grew dark, in the future it will thus grow light for them.",
+ "The people of a wayward city have no share in the World to Come, as it says, (Deuteronomy 13:14) \"Certain base fellows are gone out from the midst of thee, and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city.\" And they are not executed unless those leading them astray are from that city and are from that tribe; and unless the majority [of that city] is lead astray; and unless men led them astray. [If] women or minors led them astray; or they only led a minority [of the city] astray; or the ones leading them stray were from outside [the city]—[those led astray] are [considered as] individuals [who each committed idolatry], and [they consequently] require two witnesses and warnings for every one [for them to be liable for execution by the court]. This [law] is more severe with respect to individuals than to the many: individuals are [executed by] stoning, and therefore their property escapes [destruction], [whereas] the many are [executed] by the sword [i.e. by decapitation], and therefore their property is lost.",
+ "(Deuteronomy 13:16) \"Thou shalt surely smite, etc.\" Donkey drivers and camel drivers that pass from place to place, they can save it. (Deuteronomy 13:16) \"Destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, etc,\" from here they said: the property of the righteous inside [the city] is lost, [whereas the property of the righteous] outside [the city] escapes. [But] that of the wicked, whether inside or outside, is destroyed.",
+ "As it says, (Deuteronomy 13:17) \"And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the broad place thereof\"; If it does not have a broad place, we make a broad place. If its broad place were outside, we bring it inside. As it says, \"And you shall burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, unto the Lord thy God.\" Its spoils, not the spoils of Heaven. From here they said: the hekdeshot [property consecrated to the Temple] within it must be redeemed; and the terumot [portions given to the priest] must be allowed to rot; ma'aser sheni [the second tithe, which must be eaten in Jerusalem] and Holy Scriptures should be buried. \"Every whit [kalil], unto the Lord thy God\": Rabbi Shimon says, said God, if you make judgment on a wayward city, I will consider it as if you offered a complete [kalil] burnt-offering before Me. \"And it shall be a heap forever; it shall not be built again\": you may not make [it even] gardens or orchards, according to Rabbi Yosi Hagalili. Rabbi Akiva says, \"it shall not be built again\": it may not be rebuilt to what it was, but it may be made into gardens and orchards. \" (Deuteronomy 13:18) \"And there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing to thy hand\": So long as the wicked are in the world, burning anger is in the world. [Once] the wicked are destroyed from the world, burning anger is removed from the world."
+ ],
+ [
+ "These are [executed by] strangulation: one who strikes his father or mother; one who kidnaps a Jew; a zaken mamre [an ordained scholar who instructs people to act against Jewish practice as determined and ratified by the full Sandherin sitting in its chambers in the Temple in Jerusalem] [who rebels] against [a ruling of] the court; a false prophet; one who prophesies in the name of an idol; an adulterer; and [witnesses] who scheme against a priest's daughter and the one who sleeps with her. One who strikes his father or mother—[he] is not liable unless he wounds them. This [law] is more severe with respect to one who curses [his parents] than to one who strikes [his parents]: one who curses after [their] death is liable, while one who strikes after [their] death is exempt. One who kidnaps a Jew—[he] is not liable until [the kidnapper] enters [the kidnapped] into his domain. Rabbi Yehudah says, until [the kidnapper] enters him into his domain and puts him to work [as a slave], as it says, (Deuteronomy 24:7) \"and he deal with him as a slave, and sell him.\" One who kidnaps his [own] son, Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka, maintains that he is liable; and the Sages maintain that he is exempt. One who kidnaps one who is half-slave and half-free, Rabbi Yehudah maintains that he is liable, and the Sages maintain that he is exempt.",
+ "A zaken mamre [who rebels] against [a ruling of] the court—as it is written, (Deuteronomy 17:8) \"If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, etc.\" There were three courts there, one sitting at the entrance of the Temple Mount, one sitting at the entrance of the Temple Courtyard, and one sitting at the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They come to the one at the entrance of the Temple Mount, and say, \"Thus I have expounded and thus have my fellows expounded\"; \"Thus I have taught and thus have my fellows taught.\" If they heard [the teaching], they tell them. If not, they come to those at the entrance of the Temple Courtyard, and say, \"Thus I have expounded and thus have my fellows expounded\"; \"Thus I have taught and thus have my fellows taught.\" If they heard [the teaching], they tell them. If not, they all come to The Great Court in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, from which Torah goes out to all of Israel, as it is says, (Deuteronomy 17:10) \"from that place which the Lord shall choose.\" [If] he returned to his city and taught again the way he taught [previously], he is exempt. [But if] he ruled [for others] to act [in accordance with his deviant teaching], he is liable, as it says, (Deuteronomy 17:12) \"and the man that doeth presumptuously\": he is not liable until he rules [for others] to act [in accordance with his deviant teaching]. A student [of his] who rules [for others] to act [in accordance with his teacher's deviant teaching] is exempt; it results that his stringency [that his is not qualified to offer practical instruction] is his leniency [that he is exempt from punishment].",
+ "This [law] is more severe with respect to the words of the Sages than to the words of the Torah: One who says, there is no such thing as tefillin, in order to transgress the words of the Torah, is exempt. [But one who says] there are five compartments, [in tefillin] in order to add to the words of the Sages, is liable. ",
+ "They do not execute him in his city's court or in the court at Yavneh; rather, they bring him up to the Great Court in Jerusalem, and they guard him until the festival, and they execute him on the festival, as it says, (Deuteronomy 17:13) \"And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously,\" according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehudah says, they do not delay the judgment of this one; rather, they execute him immediately, and they write and send messengers to every place [with the following message]: \"This man so-and-so son of that man so-and-so was liable to execution by the court. ",
+ "A false prophet— [one who] prophesies regarding that which he did not hear and that which was not said to him, his death is by man [i.e. the court is empowered to execute him]. But one who suppresses his prophecy, and one who disregards the words of a prophet, and a prophet who transgressed his own words, his death is by Heaven [i.e. the court is not empowered to execute him], as it says, (Deuteronomy 18:19) \"I will require it of him.\"",
+ "One who prophesies in the name of an idol— [this is] one who says \"thus said the idol,\" even if he directed his instruction to render the impure impure and the pure pure. An adulterer—once she has entered the domain of her husband through the full marriage ceremony, even though she has not had relations [with her husband], [another] who has relations with her is [executed] by strangulation. [Witnesses] who scheme against a priest's daughter and the one who has relations with her—since all scheming [witnesses] receive the same form of execution [as that incurred by the prohibition which they have schemed to falsely accuse another of transgressing], except for [witnesses] who scheme against a priest's daughter and the one who has relations with her. "
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2bfef12c13a63da8ef887e1b4f6949c0284d33f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001042448/NLI",
+ "versionTitle": "Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de]",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 0.25,
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+ "actualLanguage": "de",
+ "languageFamilyName": "german",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "GELDANGELEGENHEITEN WERDEN VOR DREI RICHTERN VERHANDELT, RAUB UND KÖRPERVERLETZUNGEN VOR DREI, SCHADEN- UND HALBER SCHADENERSATZ, ZAHLUNG DES DOPPELTEN UND DES VIER ODER FÜNFFACHEN VOR DREI, NOTZUCHT, VERFÜHRUNG UND FALSCHE ANSCHULDIGUNG VOR DREI – SO R. MEÍR; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, DIE FALSCHE ANSCHULDIGUNG VOR DREIUNDZWANZIG RICHTERN, WEIL HIERBEI AUF TODESSTRAFE ERKANNT WERDEN KANN.",
+ "ÜBER DIE GEISSELUNG WIRD VOR DREI RICHTERN VERHANDELT; IM NAMEN R. JIŠMA͑ÉLS SAGTEN SIE, VOR DREIUNDZWANZIG. DIE INTERKALATION DES MONATS UND DIE INTERKALATION DES JAHRESERFOLGT DURCH DREI RICHTER – SO R. MEÍR. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, DIE ERÖFFNUNG DURCH DREI, DIE VERHANDLUNG DURCH FÜNF UND DIE BESCHLUSSFASSUNG DURCH SIEBEN; ERFOLGTE DIE BESCHLUSSFASSUNG DURCH DREI, SO IST DIE INTERKALATION GÜLTIG.",
+ "DAS STÜTZENDER ÄLTESTEN UND DAS GENICKBRECHEN DES KALBESDURCH DREI – SO R. ŠIMO͑N; R. JEHUDA SAGT, DURCH FÜNF. DIE ḤALIÇAUND DIE WEIGERUNGSERKLÄRUNGDURCH DREI. VIERJAHRSFRUCHTUND ZWEITERZEHNT, DESSEN WERT NICHT BEKANNTIST, WERDEN VOR DREI RICHTERN AUSGELÖST; GEHEILIGTES VOR DREI, SCHÄTZGELÜBDE BEWEGLICHER SACHEN VOR DREI; R. JEHUDA SAGT, EINER VON DIESEN MÜSSE EIN PRIESTER SEIN. GRUNDSTÜCKE VOR NEUN UND EINEM PRIESTER; DASSELBE GILT AUCH VON EINEM MENSCHEN.",
+ "TODES STRAFSACHEN WERDEN VOR DREIUNDZWANZIG RICHTERN VERHANDELT; EBENSO ÜBER DAS AKTIV ODER PASSIV ZUR BESTIALITÄT VERWANDTE TIER, DENN ES HEISST:du sollst das Weib und das Vieh töten, FERNER HEISST ES: und das Vieh sollt ihr töten; ÜBER DEN ZU STEINIGENDEN OCHSENVOR DREIUNDZWANZIG, DENN ES HEISST:der Ochs werde gesteinigt und auch dessen Eigentümer soll sterben, DIE ABURTEILUNG DES OCHSEN GLEICHT DER ABURTEILUNG DES EIGENTÜMERS. DER WOLF, DER LÖWE, DER BÄR, DER TIGER, DER PANTHER UND DIE SCHLANGE SIND DURCH DREIUNDZWANZIG RICHTER HINZURICHTEN. R. ELIE͑ZER SAGT, WER SIE ZUERST TÖTET, HABE EIN VERDIENST. R. A͑QIBA SAGT, SIE SIND DURCH DREIUNDZWANZIG RICHTER HINZURICHTEN.",
+ "MAN RICHTE EINEN STAMM, EINEN FALSCHEN PROPHETEN UND EINEN HOGHPRIESTER NUR VOR DEM GERICHTE VON EINUNDSIEBZIG MITGLIEDERN; MAN DARF ZU EINEM FREIKRIEGENUR DURCH ENTSCHEIDUNG DES GERICHTES VON EINUNDSIEBZIG MITGLIEDERN AUSZIEHEN; MAN DARF DIE STADTODER DIE TEMPELHÖFE NUR DURCH BESCHLUSS DES GERICHTES VON EINUNDSIEBZIG MITGLIEDERN ERWEITERN; MAN DARF GERIGHTSHÖFEFÜR EINZELNE STÄMMENUR DURCH BESCHLUSS DES GERICHTES VON EINUNDSIEBZIG MITGLIEDERN EINSETZEN. EINE STADT KANN NUR DURCH DAS GERICHT VON EINUNDSIEBZIG MITGLIEDERN ALS ABTRÜNNIGERKLÄRT WERDEN; DIE AN DER GRENZE LIEGENDE STADT KANN NICHT ALS ABTRÜNNIG VERURTEILT WERDEN; AUCH NICHT DREI STÄDTE, SONDERN NUR EINE ODER ZWEI.",
+ "DAS GROSSE SYNEDRIUM BESTAND AUS EINUNDSIEBZIG UND DAS KLEINE AUS DREIUNDZWANZIG MITGLIEDERN. WOHER, DASS DAS GROSSE AUS EINUNDSIEBZIG BESTEHEN MUSS? ES HEISST:versammle mir siebzig Männer von den ältesten Jisraéls, UND MOŠE AN IHRER SPITZE; R. JEHUDA SAGT: AUS SIEBZIG. WOHER, DASS DAS KLEINE AUS DREIUNDZWANZIG? ES HEISST:die Gemeinde richte, UND: die Gemeinde rette, EINE RICHTENDE GEMEINDE UND EINE RETTENDE GEMEINDE, DAS SIND ALSO ZWANZIG. WOHER, DASS DIE GEMEINDE AUS ZEHN MÄNNERN BESTEHT? ES HEISST:wie lange noch murrt diese böse Gemeinde, AUSGENOMMENSIND JEHOŠUA͑ UND KALEB. WOHER, DASS NOCH DREI HINZUKOMMEN? AUS DEN WORTEN:man richte sich zum Bösen nicht nach der Mehrheit, IST JA ZU ENTNEHMEN, DASS MAN SICH NACH DIESER ZUM GUTEN WOHL RICHTE, WENN ES NUN ÜBERFLÜSSIG HEISST:man richte sich nach der Mehrheit, SO BESAGT DIES, DASS DER AUSSCHLAG ZUM BÖSEN NICHT DEM AUSSCHLAGE ZUM GUTEN GLEICHE: ZUM GUTEN ERFOLGT DER AUSSGHLAG DURCH EINEN, ZUM BÖSEN ERFOLGT DER AUSSCHLAG DURCH ZWEI, UND DA NUN EIN GERICHTSHOF NICHT AUS EINER GERADEN ZAHL BESTEHENSOLL, SO NEHME MAN NOCH EINEN HINZU; DAS SIND ALSO DREIUNDZWANZIG. WIEVIEL EINWOHNER MUSS EINE STADT HABEN, UM FÜR EIN SYNEDRIUM GEEIGNET ZU SEIN? HUNDERTUNDZWANZIG; R. NEḤEMJA SAGT: ZWEIHUNDERTUNDDREISSIG, ENTSPRECHEND DEN VORGESETZTEN ÜBER ZEHN."
+ ],
+ [
+ "DER HOCHPRIESTER KANN RICHTEN UND GERICHTET WERDEN; ER KANN ZEUGE SEIN UND MAN KANN GEGEN IHN ZEUGEN; ER KANN DIE ḤALIÇA VOLLZIEHEN UND MAN KANN AN SETNER FRAU DIE ḤALIÇA VOLLZIEHEN. MAN KANN AN SEINER FRAU DIE SCHWAGEREHE VOLLZIEHEN, ER ABER KANN DIE SCHWAGEREHE NICHT VOLLZIEHEN, WEIL IHM EINE WITWE VERBOTEN IST. STIRBT IHM JEMAND, SO GEHE ER NICHT HINTER DER BAHRE, VIELMEHR ZEIGE ER SICH ERST, WENN SIE NICHT MEHR ZU SEHEN SIND, UND VERBERGE SICH, WENN SIE; ZU SEHEN SIND, UND SO GEHE ER MIT IHNEN BIS ZUR TÜR DES STADTTORES – SO R. MEÍR. R. JEHUDA SAGT, ER DÜRFE DAS HEILIGTUM ÜBERHAUPT NICHT VERLASSEN, DENN ES HEISST: und aus dem Heiligtume soll er nicht gehen. TRÖSTET ER ANDERE, SO IST ES ÜBLICH, DASS DAS GANZE VOLK EINER HINTER DEM ANDEREN EINHERGEHT, WÄHREND DER BEAMTE IHN ZWISCHEN SICH UND DEM VOLKE IN DIE MITTE NIMMT. WIRD ER VON ANDEREN GETRÖSTET, SO SPRICHT DAS VOLK ZU IHM: MÖGEN WIR DEINE SÜHNE SEIN! DARAUF ERWIDERT ER IHNEN: SEID VOM HIMMEL GESEGNET! REICHT MAN IHM DAS TRAUERMAHL, SO LAGERT SICH DAS GANZE VOLK AUF DIE ERDE, ER ABER AUF EINEN SCHEMEL.",
+ "DER KÖNIG KANN WEDER RICHTEN NOCH GERICHTET WERDEN, WEDER KANN ER ZEUGE SEIN NOCH KANN MAN GEGEN IHN ZEUGEN, WEDER VOLLZIEHE ER DIE ḤALIÇA NOCH VOLLZIEHE MAN DIE ḤALIÇA AN SEINER FRAU, WEDER VOLLZIEHE ER DIE SCHWAGEREHE NOCH VOLLZIEHE MAN DIE SCHWAGEREHE AN SEINER FRAU. R. JEHUDA SAGT, WILL ER DIE ḤALIÇA ODER DIE SCHWAGEREHE VOLLZIEHEN, SO SEI SEINER ZUM GUTEN GEDACHT. JENE ABER ERWIDERTEN IHM: MAN HÖRE NICHT AUF IHN. MAN HEIRATE NICHT SEINE WITWE; R. JEHUDA SAGT, EIN KÖNIG DÜRFE DIE WITWE EINES KÖNIGS HEIRATEN, DENN SO FINDEN WIR AUCH, DASS DAVID DIE WITWE SAÚLS HEIRATETE, WIE ES HEISST:ich übergab dir das Haus deines Herrn und die Frauen deines Herrn legte ich an deinen Busen.",
+ "STIRBT IHM JEMAND, SO VERLASSE ER NICHT DIE TÜR SEINES PALASTES. R. JEHUDA SAGT, WILL ER HINTER DER BAHRE GEHEN, SO DÜRFE ER DIES, DENN SO FINDEN WIR AUCH BEI DAVID, DASS ER HINTER DER BAHRE ABNERS GING, WIE ES HEISST:und der König David schritt hinter der Bahre her. MAN ENTGEGNETE IHM: DA GESCHAH ES NUR, UM DAS VOLK ZU BESÄNFTIGEN. REICHT MAN IHM DAS TRAUERMAHL, SO LEGTE SICH DAS GANZE VOLK AUF DIE ERDE, ER ABER AUF EIN DARGEŠ.",
+ "ER KANN ZU EINEM FREIKRIEGE MIT ZUSTIMMUNG DES GERICHTSHOFES VON EINUNDSIEBZIG MITGLIEDERN AUSZIEHEN; ER DARF SICH BAHN BRECHEN, OHNE DASS JEMAND ES IHM WEHREN KANN. DIE STRASSE DES KÖNIGS HAT KEINE BESCHRÄNKTE GREKZE. DAS VOLK MUSS ALLES, WAS ES ERBEUTET, IHM VORLEGEN, UND ER NIMMT SEINEN ANTEIL ZUERST. Er darf sich nicht viele Frauen halten, NICHT MEHR ALS ACHTZEHN. R. JEHUDA SAGT, ER DÜRFE SICH MEHR HALTEN, NUR DASS SIE SEIN HERZ NICHT ABWENDIG MACHEN. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT, SELBST EINE, DIE ABER SEIN HERZ ABWENDIG MACHT, DÜRFE ER NICHT NEHMEN; NUR DESHALB HEISST ES, ER DÜRFE SICH NICHT VIELE HALTEN, SELBST SOLCHE WIE ABIGAJIL. Er darf sich nicht viele Rosse halten, NUR SOVIEL ER FÜR SEINE WAGEN BRAUCHT.Und Silber und Gold soll er sich nicht in Masse anhäufen, NUR SOVIEL, UM DEN SOLD ZU ZAHLEN. ER SCHREIBE EINE TORAROLLE AUF SEINEN NAMEN; ZIEHT ER IN DEN KRIEG, SO FÜHRE ER SIE BEI SICH; KEHRT ER HEIM, SO FÜHRE ER SIE BEI SICH; SITZT ER ZU GERICHT, SO HALTE ER SIE BEI SICH; SITZT ER BEI TAFEL, SO BEFINDE SIE SICH IHM GEGENÜBER; DENN ES HEISST:er soll sie bei sich haben und sein Leben lang darin lesen.",
+ "MAN DARF NICHT AUF SEINEM PFERDE REITEN, NOCH AUF SEINEM THRONE SITZEN, NOCH SICH SEINES STABES BEDIENEN. MAN DARF NICHT ZUSEHEN, WENN ER SICH DAS HAAR SCHNEIDEN LÄSST, AUCH NICHT WENN ER NACKT IST, AUCH NICHT WENN ER SICH IM BADE BEFINDET, DENN ES HEISST:(du sollst einen König über dich setzen, DASS DU EHRFURCHT VOR IHM HAST."
+ ],
+ [
+ "GELDANGELEGENHEITEN WERDEN VOR DREI RICHTERN VERHANDELT: DIESER WÄHLT EINEN, JENER WÄHLT EINEN ANDEREN UND BEIDE ZUSAMMEN WÄHLEN NOCH EINEN – SO R. MEÍR; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, DIE BEIDEN RICHTER WÄHLEN DEN DRITTEN. DIESER KANN DEN VON JENEM GEWÄHLTEN RIGHTER ALS UNZULÄSSIG ABLEHNEN, UND JENER KANN DEN VON DIESEM GEWÄHLTEN RICHTER ALS UNZULÄSSIG ABLEHNEN – SO R. MEÍR. DIE WEISEN SAGEN, NUR DANN, WENN ER DEN BEWEIS ERBRINGT, DASS ER VERWANDT ODER UNZULÄSSIG IST, WENN ER ABER ZULÄSSIG ODER AUTORISIERT IST, SO KANN ER IHN NICHT ABLEHNEN. DIESER KANN DIE ZEUGEN VON JENEM ALS UNZULÄSSIG ABLEHNEN, UND JENER KANN DIE ZEUGEN VON DIESEM ALS UNZULÄSSIG ABLEHNEN – SO R. MEÍR. DIE WEISEN SAGEN, NUR DANN, WENN ER DEN BEWEIS ERBRINGT, DASS SIE VERWANDT ODER UNZULÄSSIG SIND, WENN SIE ABER ZULÄSSIG SIND, SO KANN ER SIE NICHT ABLEHNEN.",
+ "SAGTE EINER: MEIN VATER IST MIR GLAUBWÜRDIG, DEIN VATER IST MIR GLAUBWÜRDIG, JENE DREI HIRTEN SIND MIR GLAUBWÜRDIG, SO KANN ER, WIE R. MEÍR SAGT, ZURÜCKTRETEN; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, ER KÖNNE NICHT MEHR ZURÜCKTRETEN. WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EINEN EID SCHULDET, UND DIESER ZU IHM SAGT: BETEURE ES MIR BEI DEINEM LEBEN, SO KANN ER, WIE R. MEÍR SAGT, ZURÜCKTRETEN; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, ER KÖNNE NICHT MEHR ZURÜCKTRETEN.",
+ "FOLGENDE SIND UNZULÄSSIG: GLÜCKSSPIELER, WUCHERER, DIE TAUBEN FLIEGEN LASSEN, UND DIE MIT ERZEUGNISSEN DES SIEBENTJAHRES HANDELN. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGTE: FRÜHER NANNTE MAN SIE SIEBENTJAHRSFRUCHT-SAMMLER, ALS ABER DIE ZWINGHERREN SICH MEHRTEN, BENANNTE MAN SIE SIEBENTJAHRSFRUCHT-HÄNDLER. R. JEHUDA SAGTE: NUR DANN, WENN SIE WEITER KEINEN ANDEREN BERUF HABEN, HABEN SIE ABER NOCH EINEN ANDEREN BERUF, SO SIND SIE ZULÄSSIG.",
+ "FOLGENDE GELTEN ALS VERWANDTE: EIN BRUDER, EIN BRUDER DES VATERS, EIN BRUDER DER MUTTER, EIN MANN DER SCHWESTER, EIN MANN DER SCHWESTER DES VATERS, EIN MANN DER SCHWESTER DER MUTTER, EIN MANN DER MUTTER, EIN SCHWIEGERVATER, EIN SCHWAGER, SIE SELBER, IHRE SÖHNE UND IHRE SCHWIEGERSÖHNE, UND EIN STIEFSOHN, ER ALLEIN. R. JOSE SAGTE : DIES IST DIE MIŠNA R. A͑QIBAS, DIE URSPRÜNGLICHE MIŠNA ABER LAUTETE : EIN OHEIM UND DER SOHN EINES OHEIMS. FERNER AUCH, WER IHN BEERBENKANN. JEDER, DER ZUR ZEIT VERWANDT IST, IST UNZULÄSSIG ; WAR ER ZUR ZEIT VERWANDT UND WURDE ENTFREMDET, SO IST ER ZULÄSSIG. R. JEHUDA SAGT : WENN SEINE TOCHTER GESTORBEN IST UND KINDER HINTER-LASSEN HAT, SO GILT DER SCHWIEGERSOHN ALS VERWANDT.",
+ "FERNER AUCHEIN FREUND UND EIN FEIND. ALS FREUND GILT DER HOCHZEITSKAMERAD, ALS FEIND GILT EINER, DER AUS FEINDSCHAFT DREI TAGE MIT IHM NICHT GESPROCHEN HAT. MAN ERWIDERTE IHM: JISRAÉL IST DESSEN NICHT VERDÄCHTIG.",
+ "WIE PRÜFT MAN DIE ZEUGEN? MAN FÜHRT SIE IN EIN ZIMMER UND SCHÜCHTERT SIE EIN; ALSDANN SCHICKT MAN SIE HINAUS UND NUR DER GRÖSSTE VON IHNEN BLEIBT ZURÜCK, UND MAN SPRICHT ZU IHM: SPRICH, WOHER WEISST DU, DASS DIESER JENEM GELD SCHULDIG IST? SAGT ER, DIESER HABE IHM GESAGT, ER SCHULDE JENEM GELD, ODER JEMAND HABE IHM GESAGT, DASS DIESER JENEM GELD SCHULDE, SO HAT ER NICHTS BEKUNDET; ER MUSS DURCHAUS BEKUNDEN: IN UNSERER GEGENWART HAT DIESER EINGESTANDEN, DASS ER JENEM ZWEIHUNDERT ZUZ SCHULDE. ALSDANN FÜHRT MAN DEN ZWEITEN HEREIN UND PRÜFT IHN; STIMMEN IHRE AUSSAGEN ÜBEREIN, SO WIRD DARÜBER VEBHANDELT. WENN ZWEI ZU SEINEN GUNSTEN ENTSCHEIDEN UND EINER ZU SEINEN UNGUNSTEN, SO WIRD ZU SEINEN GUNSTEN ENTSCHIEDEN; WENN ZWEI ZU SEINEN UNGUNSTEN ENTSCHEIDEN UND EINER ZU SEINEN GUNSTEN, SO WIRD ZU SEINEN UNGUNSTEN ENTSCHIEDEN. WENN EINER ZU SEINEN UNGUNSTEN UND EINER ZU SEINEN GUNSTEN ENTSCHEIDET, ODER SELBST WENN ZWEI ZU SEINEN GUNSTEN UND ZWEI ZU SEINEN UNGUNSTEN ENTSCHEIDEN, UND EINER SAGT, ER WISSE NICHT, SO WERDEN RICHTER HINZUGENOMMEN.",
+ "HABEN SIE DIE VERHANDLUNG BEENDET, SO LÄSST MAN DIE PROZESSFÜHRENDEN EINTRETEN UND DER OBMANN DER RICHTER SPRICHT: DU N. HAST GEWONNEN, UND DU N. HAST VERLOREN. WOHER, DASS KEINER BEI SEINEM FORTGEHEN SAGEN DÜRFE: ICH HABE ZU SEINEN GUNSTEN GESTIMMT UND MEINE KOLLEGEN ZU SEINEN UNGUNSTEN, WAS ABER KONNTE ICH DAFÜR, DASS MEINE KOLLEGEN MICH ÜBERSTIMMT HABEN? ES HEISST :du sollst nicht als Verleumder unter deinen Volksgenossen umhergehen; FERNER HEISST ES:Verleumder ist, wer Geheimnisse verrät.",
+ "SOBALD ER EIN NEUES BEWEISSTÜCK BRINGT, WIRD DAS URTEIL UMGESTOSSEN. SAGTE MAN IHM, DASS ER ALLE BEWEISSTÜCKE, DIE ER HAT, BINNEN DREISSIG TAGEN BRINGEN SOLL, SO WIRD DAS URTEIL, WENN ER SIE INNERHALB DER DREISSIG TAGE BRINGT, UMGESTOSSEN, WENN NACH DREISSIG TAGEN, SO WIRD ES NIGHT UMGESTOSSEN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SPRACH: WAS KANN DIESER DAFÜR, DASS ER NIGHT INNERHALB DER DREISSIG TAGE, SONDERN ERST NACH DEN DREISSIG TAGEN GEFUNDEN HAT!? SAGTE MAN ZU IHM, DASS ER ZEUGEN BRINGE, UND ERWIDERTE ER, ER HABE KEINE ZEUGEN, DASS ER EINEN BEWEIS BRINGE, UND ERWIDERTE ER, ER HABE KEINEN BEWEIS, SO SIND, WENN ER NACH EINER ZEIT EINEN BEWEIS BRINGT ODER ZEUGEN FINDET, DIESE UNGÜLTIG. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SPRACH: WAS KANN DIESER DAFÜR, DASS ER NICHT WÜSSTE, DASS ER ZEUGEN HAT, UND DOCH WELCHE GEFUNDEN HAT, DASS ER NICHT WUSSTE, DASS ER EINEN BEWEIS HAT, UND DOCH EINEN GEFUNDEN HAT!? WENN ER ABER, NACHDEM ER EINGESEHEN HAT, DASS ER VERLIERT, SAGT, DASS MAN N. UND N. VORTRETEN LASSE, DIE FÜR IHN ZEUGEN MÖGEN, ODER DAS BEWEISSTÜCK AUS SEINER GÜRTEL-TASCHE HERVORHOLT, SO SIND SIE UNGÜLTIG."
+ ],
+ [
+ "SOWOHL BEI GELDSACHEN ALS AUCH BEI TODESSTRAFSACHEN IST DIE UNTERSUCHUNG UND DIE AUSFORSCHUNG DER ZEUGEN ERFORDERLICH, DENN ES HEISST : einerlei Recht sollt ihr haben. WELCHEN UNTERSCHIED GIBT ES ZWISCHEN GELDSACHEN UND TODESSTRAFSACHEN? GELDSACHEN WERDEN VOR DREI UND TODESSTRAFSACHEN VOR DREIUNDZWANZIG RICHTERN VERHANDELT. BEI GELDSACHEN WIRD DIE VERHANDLUNG SOWOHL MIT SEINER ENTLASTUNG ALS AUCH MIT SEINER BELASTUNG BEGONNEN, BEI TODESSTRAFSACHEN NUR MIT SEINER ENTLASTUNG, NICHT ABER MIT SEINER BELASTUNG. BEI GELDSACHEN IST DIE MEHRHEIT EINER STIMME ENTSCHEIDEND SOWOHL ZU GUNSTEN ALS AUCH ZU UNGUNSTEN, BEI TODESSTRAFSACHEN IST DIE MEHRHEIT EINER STIMME NUR ZU GUNSTEN ENTSCHEIDEND, ZU UNGUNSTEN NUR DIE MEHRHEIT ZWEIER STIMMEN. BEI GELDSACHEN KANN DAS URTEIL WIDERRUFEN WERDEN, SOWOHL ZU GUNSTEN ALS AUCH ZU UNGUNSTEN, BEI TODESSTRAFSACHEN KANN DAS URTEIL NUR ZU GUNSTEN WIDERRUFEN WERDEN, NICHT ABER ZU UNGUNSTEN. BEI GELDSACHEN KANN JEDER EINE ENTLASTENDE ODER BELASTENDE ANSICHT VORBRINGEN, BEI TODESSTRAFSACHEN KANN WOHL JEDER EINE ENTLASTENDE ANSICHT VORBRINGEN, NICHT ABER EINE BELASTENDE. BEI GELDSACHEN KANN, WER BELASTEND VORTRUG, ENTLASTEND VORTRAGEN, UND WER ENTLASTEND VORTRUG, BELASTEND VORTRAGEN, BEI TODESSTRAFSACHEN ABER KANN, WER BELASTEND VORTRUG, ENTLASTEND VORTRAGEN, WER ABER ENTLASTEND VORTRUG, KANN NICHT MEHR ZURÜCKTRETEN UND BELASTEND VORTRAGEN. VERHANDLUNGEN ÜBER GELDSACHEN WERDEN AM TAGE GEFÜHRT UND KÖNNEN NACHTS GESCHLOSSEN WERDEN, VERHANDLUNGEN ÜBER TODESSTRAFSACHEN WERDEN AM TAGE GEFÜHRT UND MÜSSEN AUCH AM TAGE GESCHLOSSEN WERDEN. BEI GELDSACHEN WIRD DAS URTEIL AM TAGE DER VERHANDLUNG GEFÄLLT, OB ZU GUNSTEN DER ZU UNGUNSTEN, BEI TODESSTRAFSACHEN ABER KANN DAS URTEIL AM SELBEN TAGE NUR ZU GUNSTEN GEFÄLLT WERDEN, ZU UNGUNSTEN ABER ERST AM FOLGENDEN TAGE. DAHER WIRD WEDER AM VORABEND DES ŠABBATHS NOCH AM VORABEND DES FESTES GERICHT ABGEHALTEN.",
+ "VERHANDLUNGEN ÜBER GELDANGELEGENHEITEN UND FRAGEN ÜBER UNREINHEIT UND REINHEIT BEGINNEN MIT DEM GRÖSSTEN, ÜBER TODESSTRAFSACHEN BEGINNEN SIE VON DER SEITE. JEDER IST ZULÄSSIG, IN GELDSACHEN ZU RICHTEN, NICHT ABER IST JEDEB ZULÄSSIG, IN TODESSTRAFSACHEN ZU RICHTEN, SONDERN NUR PRIESTER, LEVITEN UND JISRAÉLITEN, DIE IHRE TÖCHTER AN PRIESTER VERHEIRATEN DÜRFEN.",
+ "DAS SYNEDRIUM SASS IN DER ART EINES HALBKREISES, UM EINANDER SEHEN ZU KÖNNEN. ZWEI GERICHTSSCHREIBER STANDEN VOR IHNEN, EINER RECHTS UND DER ANDERE LINKS, UND SCHRIEBEN DIE WORTE DER SCHULDIGSPRECHENDEN UND DER FREISPRECHENDEN NIEDER. R. JEHUDA SAGT, DREI, EINER SCHRIEB DIE WORTE DER FREISPRECHENDEN, DER ANDERE SCHRIEB DIE WORTE DER SCHULDIGSPRECHENDEN UND DER DRITTE SCHRIEB DIE WORTE DER FREISPRECHENDEN UND DER SCHULDIGSPRECHENDEN",
+ "DREI REIHEN VON SCHRIFTGELEHRTEN SASSEN VOR IHNEN, UND JEDER KANNTE SEINEN PLATZ. WAR ES NÖTIG, EINEN ZU ORDINIEREN, SO WURDE EINER AUS DER ERSTEN REIHE ORDINIERT, WÄHREND EINER AUS DER ZWEITEN IN DIE ERSTE UND EINER AUS DER DRITTEN IN DIE ZWEITE AUFRÜCKTE, UND EINER AUS DEM VOLKE WURDE GEWÄHLT UND IN DIE DRITTE GESETZT; DIESER SASS ABER NICHT AUF DEM FREIGEWORDENEN PLATZE, SONDERN AUF DEM, DER IHM GEBÜHRT.",
+ "AUF WELCHE WEISE WERDEN DIE ZEUGEN IN TODESSTRAFSACHEN EINGESCHÜCHTERT? MAN FÜHRT SIE HEREIN UND SCHÜCHTERT SIE DURCH FOLGENDE WORTE EIN: VIELLEICHT SAGT IHR DIES AUS VERMUTUNG ODER VOM HÖRENSAGEN, ODER WISST IHR ES AUS DEM MUNDE ANDERER ZEUGEN, ODER AUS DEM MUNDE EINES GLAUBWÜRDIGEN MENSCHEN, ODER VIELLEICHT WISST IHR NICHT, DASS WIR EUCH SPÄTER UNTERSUCHEN UND AUSFORSCHEN WERDEN. WISSET AUCH, DASS BEI TODESSTRAFSACHEN ES SICH NICHT SO VERHÄLT, WIE BEI GELDSACHEN; BEI GELDSACHEN KANN MAN EINEN ERSATZ LEISTENUND SÜHNE ERLANGEN, BEI TODESSTRAFSACHEN ABER BLEIBT AN IHM DAS BLUT DES HINGERICHTETEN UND DAS BLUT SEINER NACHFOLGE BIS AN DAS WELTENDE HAFTEN. SO FINDEN WIR ES AUCH BEI QAJIN, DER SEINEN BRUDER ERSCHLUG, WIE ES HEISST :das Geblüt deines Bruders schreien, ES HEISST NICHT : DAS BLUT DEINES BRUDERS, SONDERN : DAS GEBLÜT DEINES BRUDERS, SEIN BLUT UND DAS BLUT SEINER NACHFOLGE. EINE ANDERE ERKLÄRUNG: das Geblüt deines Bruders, ES WAR NÄMLICH AUF HOLZ UND STEIN ZERSPRITZT. DER MENSCH WURDE DESHALB EINZIG ERSCHAFFEN, UM DICH ZU LEHREN, DASS, WENN JEMAND EINE JISRAÉLITISCHE SEELE VERNICHTET, ES IHM DIE SCHRIFT ANRECHNET, ALS HÄTTE ER EINE GANZE WELT VERNICHTET, UND WENN JEMAND EINE JISRAÉLITISCHE SEELE ERHÄLT, ES IHM DIE SCHRIFT ANRECHNET, ALS HÄTTE ER EINE GANZE WELT ERHALTEN. FERNER AUCH WEGEN DER FRIEDFERTIGKEIT UNTER DEN MENSCHEN, DAMIT NÄMLICH NIEMAND ZU SEINEM NÄCHSTEN SAGE: MEIN AHN WAR GRÖSSER ALS DEINER. FERNER AUCH, DAMIT NICHT DIE MINÄER SAGEN KÖNNEN, ES GEBE MEHRERE PRINZIPIEN IM HIMMEL. UND ENDLICH AUCH, UM DIE GRÖSSE DES HEILIGEN, GEPRIESEN SEI ER, ZU VERKÜNDEN; WENN EIN MENSCH MEHRERE MÜNZEN MIT EINEM STEMPEL PRÄGT, SO GLEICHEN SIE ALLE EINANDER, DER KÖNIG DER KÖNIGE ABER, DER HEILIGE, GEPRIESEN SEI ER, PRÄGT JEDEN MENSCHEN MIT DEM STEMPEL DES URMENSCHEN, UND DOCH GLEICHT NICHT EINER DEM ANDEREN. DAHER MUSS AUCH JEDER EINZELNE SAGEN: MEINETWEGEN IST DIE WELT ERSCHAFFEN WORDEN. VIELLEICHT WOLLT IHRSAGEN: WAS SOLL UNS DIESE PLAGE, SO HEISST ES :und er war Zeuge, hat gesehen oder erfahren, und es nicht anzeigt &c. VIELLEICHT WOLLT IHR SAGEN: WOZU SOLLEN WIR DAS BLUT DIESES MENSCHEN VERSCHULDEN, SO HEISST ES:wenn die Gottlosen untergehen, ertönt Jubel."
+ ],
+ [
+ "MAN PRÜFTE SIE DURCH EINE SIEBENFACHE AUSFORSCHUNG: IN WELCHEM SEPTENNIUM, IN WELCHEM JAHRE, IN WELCHEM MONAT, AM WIEVIELTEN DES MONATS, AN WELCHEM WOCHENTAGE, IN WELCHER STUNDE UND AN WELCHEM ORTE. R. JOSE SAGT : AN WELCHEM WOCHENTAGE, IN WELCHER STUNDE, AN WELCHEM ORTE, KENNT IHR IHN, UND: HABT IHR IHN GEWARNT. TRIEB ER GÖTZENDIENST, SO FRAGTE MAN AUCH: WEN VEREHRTE ER UND AUF WELCHE WEISE.",
+ "JE MEHR MAN SIE PRÜFT, DESTO LOBENS WERTER IST ES. EINST UNTERSUCHTE SIE BEN ZAKKAJ DURCH FRAGEN ÜBER DIE STENGEL DES FEIGENBAUMES. WELCHEN UNTERSCHIED GIBT ES ZWISCHEN AUSFORSCHUNGEN UND UNTERSUCHUNGEN? WENN EINER AUF EINE DER AUSFORSCHUNGSFRAGEN ANTWORTET, ER WISSE ES NICHT, SO IST DAS ZEUGNIS UNGÜLTIG, WENN ABER EINER AUF EINE DER UNTERSUCHUNGSFRAGEN ANTWORTET, ER WISSE ES NICHT, ODER SOGAR BEIDE ANTWORTEN, SIE WISSEN ES NICHT, SO IST DAS ZEUGNIS GÜLTIG. WIDERSPRECHEN SIE EINANDER, OB BEI DEN AUSFORSCHUNGEN ODER BEI DEN UNTERSUCHUNGEN, SO IST IHR ZEUGNIS UNGÜLTIG.",
+ "WENN EINER SAGT, ES SEI AM ZWEITEN DES MONATS GESCHEHEN, UND EINER SAGT, AM DRITTEN DES MONATS, SO IST IHR ZEUGNIS GÜLTIG, DENN EINER KENNT DIE SCHALTUNG DES MONATS UND EINER KENNT DIE SCHALTUNG DES MONATS NICHT; WENN ABER EINER SAGT, AM DRITTEN, UND EINER SAGT, AM FÜNFTEN, SO IST IHR ZEUGNIS UNGÜLTIG. WENN EINER SAGT, IN DER ZWEITEN STUNDE, UND EINER SAGT, IN DER DRITTEN STUNDE, SO IST HIB ZEUGNIS GÜLTIG, WENN ABEB EINER SAGT, IN DER DRITTEN, UND EINER SAGT, IN DER FÜNFTEN, SO IST IHR ZEUGNIS UNGÜLTIG ; R. JEHUDA SAGT, IHR ZEUGNIS SEI GÜLTIG. WENN EINER SAGT, IN DER FÜNFTEN, UND EINEB SAGT, IN DER SIEBENTEN, SO IST IHR ZEUGNIS UNGÜLTIG, DENN IN DER FÜNFTEN IST DIE SONNE IM OSTEN UND IN DER SIEBENTEN IST DIE SONNE IM WESTEN.",
+ "DABAUF FÜHRT MAN DEN ZWEITEN HEREIN UND PRÜFT IHN. STIMMEN IHRE AUSSAGEN ÜBEREIN, SO BEGINNT MAN DIE VERHANDLUNG MIT SEINER ENTLASTUNG. SAGT EINER VON DEN ZEUGEN, ER HABE ETWAS ZU SEINER ENTLASTUNG VORZUBRINGEN, ODER SAGT EINER VON DEN JÜNGEBN, ER HABE ETWAS ZU SEINER BELASTUNG VORZUBRINGEN, SO HEISST MAN IHN SCHWEIGEN. SAGT EINER VON DEN JÜNGERN, ER HABE ETWAS ZU SEINER ENTLASTUNG VORZUBRINGEN, SO LÄSST MAN IHN HERAUFKOMMEN UND SETZT IHN ZWISCHEN SIE, OHNE WÄHREND DES GANZEN TAGES SEINEN PLATZ ZU VERLASSEN, UND WENN SEINE WORTE ERHEBLICH SIND, SO HÖRT MAN AUF IHN. UND AUCH WENN ER SELBEIL SAGT, ER HABE ETWAS ZU SEINER ENTLASTUNG ZU SAGEN, HÖRT MAN AUF IHN, NUR MÜSSEN SEINE WORTE ERHEBLICH SEIN.",
+ "BEFINDEN SIE IHN FÜR FREISPRECHUNG, SO WIRD ER ENTLASSEN, WENN ABER NICHT, SO WIRD DAS URTEIL AUF DEN FOLGENDEN TAG VERSCHOBEN. WÄHREND DES GANZEN TAGES KOMMEN SIE PAARWEISE ZUSAMMEN, ESSEN WENIG UND TRINKEN KEINEN WEIN, UND AUCH WÄHREND DER GANZEN NACHT VERHANDELN SIE DARÜBER. AMFOLGENDEN TAGE KOMMEN SIE FRÜHZEITIG ZUR GERICHTSSITZUNG; WER FÜR FREISPRECHUNG WAR, SPRICHT: ICH WAR FÜR FREISPRECHUNG UND BLEIBE DABEI, UND WER FÜR SCHULDIGSPRECHUNG WAR, SPRICHT: ICH WAR FÜR SCHULDIGSPRECHUNG UND BLEIBE DABEI. WER FÜR SCHULDIGSPRECHUNG WAR, KANN DANN FÜR FREISPRECHUNG STIMMEN, WER ABER FÜR FREISPRECHUNG WAR, KANN NICHT ZURÜCKTRETEN UND FÜR SCHULDIGSPRECHUNG STIMMEN. IRREN SIE SICH IN ETWAS, SO ERINNERN SIE DIE ZWEI GERICHTSSCHREIBER. BEFINDEN SIE IHN FÜR FREISPRECHUNG, SO ENTLASSEN SIE IHN, WENN ABER NICHT, SO TRETEN SIE ZUR ABSTIMMUNG. SIND ZWÖLF FÜR FREISPRECHUNG UND ELF FÜR SCHULDIGSPRECHUNG, SO WIRD ER FREIGESPROCHEN; SIND ZWÖLF FÜR SCHULDIGSPRECHUNG UND ELF FÜR FREISPRECHUNG, ODER SELBST WENN ELF FÜR FREISPRECHUNG UND ELF FÜR SCHULDIGSPRECHUNG SIND, UND EINER SAGT, ER WISSE NICHT, UND SELBST WENN ZWEIUNDZWANZIG FÜR FREISPRECHUNG ODER FÜR SCHULDIGSPRECHUNG STIMMEN UND EINER SAGT, ER WISSE NICHT, SO WERDEN RICHTER HINZUGENOMMEN. WIEVIEL WERDEN HINZUGENOMMEN? – JE ZWEI, BIS AUF EINUNDSIEBZIG. SIND SECHSUNDDREISSIG FÜR FREISPRECHUNG UND FÜNFUNDDREISSIG FÜR SCHULDIGSPRECHUNG, SO WIRD ER FREIGESPROCHEN; SIND SECHSUNDDREISSIG FÜR SCHULDIGSPRECHUNG UND FÜNFUNDDREISSIG FÜR FREISPRECHUNG, SO VERHANDELN SIE MIT EINANDER, BIS EINEM DER SCHULDIGSPRECHENDEN DIE WORTE DER FREISPRECHENDEN EINLEUCHTEN."
+ ],
+ [
+ "IST DIE VERHANDLUNG BEENDET, SO FÜHRT MAN IHN ZUR STEINIGUNG. DIE STEINIGUNGSSTEILE BEFAND SICH AUSSERHALB DES GERICHTSHAUSES, WIE ES HEISST : führe den Lästerer hinaus. EINER STEHT AM EINGANGE DES GERICHTES MIT EINEM SUDARIUM IN DER HAND UND EIN ANDERER, EIN WENIG ENTFERNT, AUF EINEM PFERDE, SODASS ER JENEN SEHEN KANN. SAGT EINER DER RICHTER, ER HABE ETWAS ZU GUNSTEN DES VERURTEILTEN VORZUBRINGEN, SO SCHWENKT JENER MIT DEM SUDARIUM UND DER REITER RENNT HIN UND HÄLT DEN VERURTEILTEN ZURÜCK. UND AUCH WENN ER SELBER SAGT, ER HABE ETWAS ZU SEINER VERTEIDIGUNG VORZUBRINGEN, LÄSST MAN IHN UMKEHREN, SOGAR VIER- UND FÜNFMAL, NUR MÜSSEN SEINE WORTE ERHEBLICH SEIN. BEFINDET MAN IHN FÜR FREISPRECHUNG, SO ENTLÄSST MAN IHN, WENN ABER NICHT, SO FÜHRT MAN IHN ZUR STEINIGUNG HINAUS. VORHER RUFT EIN HEROLD AUS: N., DER SOHN DES N., WIRD ZUR STEINIGUNG HINAUSGEFÜHRT, WEIL ER JENES UND JENES VERBRECHEN BEGANGEN HAT, UND N. UND N. SIND ZEUGEN; WER ETWAS ZU SEINER VERTEIDIGUNG WEISS, KOMME UND BRINGE ES VOR.",
+ "IST EU UNGEFÄHR; ZEHN ELLEN VON DER STEINIGUNGSSTEILE ENTFERNT, SO SPRICHT MAN ZU IHM: LEGE EIN BEKENNTNIS AB. JEDER, DER HINGERICHTET WERDEN SOLL, MUSS NÄMLICH EIN BEKENNTNIS ABLEGEN, DENN WER EIN BEKENNTNIS ABLEGT, HAT EINEN ANTEIL AN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT. SO FINDEN WIR AUCH BEI A͑KHAN, DASS JEHOŠUA͑ ZU IHM SPRACH: Mein Sohn, gib doch dem Herrn, dem Gott Jisraéls, die Ehre und lege ihm ein Bekenntnis ab. Da erwiderte A͑khan Jehošua͑ und sprach: Wahrlich, ich habe gesündigt, das und das &c. WOHER, DASS SEIN BEKENNTNIS IHM SÜHNE VERSCHAFFTE? ES HEISST:Da sprach Jehošua͑: Wie hast du uns ins Unglück gestürzt! So stürze dich denn der Herr an diesem Tage ins Unglück! AN DIESEM TAGE SOLLST DU IM UNGLÜCKE SEIN, NICHT ABER IN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT. WENN ER ABER KEIN BEKENNTNIS ABZULEGEN WEISS, SO SAGE MAN ZU IHM, DASS ER SPRECHE: MEIN TOD SEI EINE SÜHNE FÜR ALL MEINE SÜNDEN. R. JEHUDA SAGTE : WENN ER WEISS, DASS GEGEN IHN FALSCHES ZEUGNIS ABGELEGT WURDE, SO SPRECHE ER: MEIN TOD SEI EINE SÜHNE FÜR ALL MEINE SÜNDEN MIT AUSNAHME DIESER SÜNDE. MAN ENTGEGNETE IHM: WENN DEM SO WÄRE, SO KÖNNTE DIES JEDER SAGEN, UM SICH ALS UNSCHULDIG ZU ZEIGEN.",
+ "SOBALD ER VIER ELLEN VON DER STEINIGUNGSSTEILE ENTFERNT IST, ZIEHT MAN IHM DIE KLEIDER AUS. EINEN MANN BEDECKE MAN VORN, EINE FRAU BEDECKE MAN VORN UND HINTEN – SO R. JEHUDA. DIE WEISEN SAGEN, EIN MANN WERDE NACKT GESTEINIGT, NICHT ABER WERDE EINE FRAU NACKT GESTEINIGT.",
+ "DIE STEINIGUNGSSTEILE WAR ZWEI MANNESHÖHEN HOCH. EINER DER ZEUGEN STÖSST IHN HÜFTLINGS HINAB; FÄLLTER AUF DAS HERZ, SO DREHE MAN IHN HÜFTLINGS UM. IST ER TOT, SO IST DER PFLICHT GENÜGT, WENN ABER NICHT, SO NIMMT DER ANDERE EINEN STEIN UND WIRFT IHM AUF DAS HERZ; IST ER DANN TOT, SO IST DER PFLICHT GENÜGT, WENN ABER NICHT, SO ERFOLGT SEINE STEINIGUNG DURCH GANZ JISRAÉL, WIE ES HEISST :die Zeugen sollen zuerst die Hand gegen ihn erheben, um ihn zu töten, und darnach das ganze Volk. ALLE GESTEINIGTEN WERDEN AUFGEHÄNGT – so R. ELIE͑ZER; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, AUFGEHÄNGT WERDEN NUR DER LÄSTERER UND DER GÖTZENDIENER. EINEN MANN HÄNGE MAN AUF MIT DEM GESICHTE GEGEN DAS PUBLIKUM, EINE FRAU HÄNGE MAN AUF MIT DEM GESICHTE GEGEN DEN GALGEN – SO R. ELIE͑ZER; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, NUR EIN MANN WERDE AUFGEHÄNGT, NICHT ABER WIRD EINE FRAU AUFGEHÄNGT. R. ELIE͑ZER SPRACH ZU IHNEN : ŠIMO͑N B. ŠATAḤ LIESS JA IN AŠQELON FRAUEN AUFHÄNGEN ! SIE ERWIDERTEN IHM: ER LIESS SOGAR ACHTZIG FRAUEN AUFHÄNGEN, OBGLEICH MAN NICHT ZWEI AN EINEM TAGE VERURTEILEN DARF. AUF WELCHE WEISE WIRD ER AUFGEHENKT? MAN SCHLÄGT EINEN PFAHL IN DIE ERDE, AUS DEM EIN QUERHOLZ AUSLÄUFT, SODANN BINDET MAN IHM DIE HÄNDE AN EINANDER UND HENKT IHNAUF. R. JOSE SAGT, DER PFAHL WERDE NUR AN DIE WANDGELEHNT, UND MAN HENKE IHN AN DIESEN AUF, AUF DIE WEISE, WIE DIE SCHLÄCHTER ES MACHEN. MAN LÖSE IHN GLEICH AB ; LÄSST MAN IHN ABER ÜBER NACHT HÄNGEN, SO BEGEHT MAN EIN VERBOT, DENN ES HEISST:sein Leichnam soll nicht über Nacht am Holze bleiben, sondern du hast ihn zu begraben &c. denn eine Lästerung Gottes ist ein Gehenkter &c.; DIES HEISST : DIESER WURDE DESHALB GEHENKT, WEIL ER DEN GÖTTLICHEN NAMEN GELÄSTERT HAT, SOMIT WÜRDE DADURCH DER NAME GOTTES ENTWEIHT WERDEN. ",
+ "R. MEÍR SAGTE : WELCHEN AUSDRUCK GEBRAUCHT DIE GÖTTLICHKEIT, WENN DER MENSCH QUALERLEIDET? MEIN KOPF IST HIN, MEIN ARM IST HIN ! WENN GOTT SICH SO SEHR ÜBER DAS VERGOSSENE BLUT DER FREVLER GRÄMT, UM WIEVIEL MEHR ÜBER DAS BLUT DER FROMMEN. UND NICHT NUR HIERBEI SAGTEN SIEES, SONDERN AUCH WENN MAN SONST EINEN TOTEN ÜBER NACHT LIEGEN LÄSST, ÜBERTRITT MAN EIN VERBOT ; LÄSST MAN IHN ZU SEINER EHRUNG ÜBER NACHT LIEGEN, UM FÜR IHN SARG UND TOTENGEWAND ZU HOLEN, SO ÜBERTRITT MAN KEINES. MAN BEGRUB IHN NICHT AUF DER GRABSTÄTTE SEINER VÄTER, VIELMEHR HATTE DAS GERICHT ZWEI BESONDERE BEGRÄBNISPLÄTZE ERRICHTET, EINEN FÜR ENTHAUPTETE UND ERDROSSELTE UND EINEN FÜR GESTEINIGTE UND VERBRANNTE.",
+ "IST DAS FLEISCH VERWEST, SO LIEST MAN DIE GEBEINE ZUSAMMEN UND BEGRÄBT SIE AUF IHREMPLATZE. DIE VERWANDTEN KOMMEN UND BEGRÜSSEN DIE RICHTER UND DIE ZEUGEN, WOMIT SIE AUSDRÜCKEN: WIR GROLLEN EUCH NICHT, DENN IHR HABT EIN GERECHTES URTEIL GEFÄLLT. SIE HIELTEN KEINE TRAUER, SONDERN TRUGEN NUR IHR LEID, DENN DAS LEID TRÄGT MAN NUR IM HERZEN."
+ ],
+ [
+ "VIER TODESARTEN SIND DEM GERICHTE ÜBERGEBEN WORDEN: STEINIGUNG, VERBRENNUNG, ENTHAUPTUNG UND ERDROSSELUNG; R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT: VERBRENNUNG, STEINIGUNG, ERDROSSELUNG UND ENTHAUPTUNG. JENES IST DAS VERFAHREN BEI DER STEINIGUNG.",
+ "FOLGENDES IST DAS VERFAHREN BEI DER VERBRENNUNG: MAN VERSENKT DEN VERURTEILTEN BIS AN DIE KNIEIN MIST, WICKELT EIN HARTES SUDARIUM IN EIN WEICHESUND DREHT ES IHM UM DEN HALS, UND EINER ZIEHT DAS EINE ENDE AN SICH UND EIN ANDERER DAS ANDERE ENDE AN SICH, BIS ER DEN MUND ÖFFNET; SODANN SCHMILZT MAN DIE MET ALLSTANGE UND GIESST IHM IN DEN MUND, SODASS ES IN SEIN EINGEWEIDE DRINGT UND SEINE GEDÄRME VERBRENNT. R. JEHUDA SPRACH: WENN ER DADURCHUNTER IHREN HÄNDEN STÜRBE, SO WÜRDE MAN JA AN IHM DAS GEBOT DER VERBRENNUNG NICHT VOLLZIEHEN; VIELMEHR ÖFFNE MAN IHM DEN MUND GEWALTSAM MIT EINER ZANGE, SODANN SCHMILZT MAN DIE METALLSTANGE UND GIESST IHM IN DEN MUND, SODASS ES IN SEIN EINGEWEIDE DRINGT UND IHM DIE GEDÄRME VERBRENNT. R. ELIE͑ZER B. ÇADOQ ERZÄHLTE: EINST TRIEB EINE PRIESTERSTOCHTER HUREREI, DA UMGAB MAN SIE MIT REISIGBÜNDELN UND VERBBANNTE SIE. MAN ENTGEGNETE IHM: WEIL DAS DAMALIGE GERICHT IM GESETZE UNKUNDIG WAR.",
+ "FOLGENDES IST DAS VERFAHREN BEI DER ENTHAUPTUNG. MAN SCHLÄGT IHM DEN KOPF MIT EINEM SCHWERTE AB, WIE ES DIE REGIERUNG ZU MACHEN PFLEGT. R. JEHUDA SAGT, DIES SEI EINE SCHÄNDUNG, VIELMEHR LEGT MAN IHN MIT DEM KOPFE AUF EINEN BLOCK UND SCHLÄGT IHN MIT EINEM BEILE AB. JENE ENTGEGNETEN IHM: ES GIBT KEINE SCHÄNDENDERE TODESART ALS DIESE. FOLGENDES IST DAS VERFAHREN BEI DER ERDROSSELUNG. MAN VERSENKT IHN IN MIST BIS AN DIE KNIE, WICKELT EIN HARTES SUDARIUM IN EIN WEICHES UND DREHT ES IHM UM DEN HALS, UND EINER ZIEHT DAS EINE ENDE AN SICH UND EIN ANDERER DAS ANDERE ENDE AN SIGH, BIS IHM DIE SEELE AUSGEHT.",
+ "FOLGENDE WERDEN DURCH STEINIGUNG HINGERICHTET: WER SEINE MUTTER, DIE FRAU SEINES VATERS, SEINE SCHWIEGERTOCHTER, EINEN MANN ODER EIN TIER BESCHLÄFT, DAS WEIB, DAS SICH VON EINEM TIERE BESCHLAFEN LÄSST, DER GOTTESLÄSTERER, DER GÖTZENDIENER, WER JEMAND VON SEINEN KINDERN DEM MOLEKH HINGIBT, DER TOTENBESCHWÖRER, DER WAHRSAGER, WER DEN ŠABBATH ENTWEIHT, WER VATER UND MUTTER FLUCHT, WER EINE VERLOBTE BESCHLÄFT, DER VERFÜHRER, DER VERLEITER, DER ZAUBERER UND DER MISSRATENE UND WIDERSPENSTIGE SOHN. WER SEINE MUTTER BESCHLÄFT, IST WEGEN BESCHLAFENS EINER MUTTER UND WEGEN BESCHLAFENS EINER FRAU DES VATERS SCHULDIG. R. JEHUDA SAGT, ER SEI NUR WEGEN BESCHLAFENS EINER MUTTER SCHULDIG. WER DIE FRAU SEINES VATERS BESCHLÄFT, IST WEGEN BESCHLAFENS EINER FRAU DES VATERS UND WEGEN BESCHLAFENS EINER EHEFRAU SCHULDIG, EINERLEI OB BEI LEBZEITEN SEINES VATERS ODER NACH DESSEN TOD, OB NACH DER VERLOBUNG ODER NACH DER VERHEIRATUNG. WER SEINE SCHWIEGERTOCHTER BESCHLÄFT, IST WEGEN BESCHLAFENS EINER SCHWIEGERTOCHTER UND WEGEN BESCHLAFENS EINER EHEFRAU SCHULDIG, EINERLEI OB BEI LEBZEITEN SEINES SOHNES ODER NACH DESSEN TOD, OB NACH DER VERLOBUNG ODER NACH DER VERHEIRATUNG. WER EINEN MANN ODER EIN TIER BESCHLÄFT, ODER WENN EIN WEIB SICH VON EINEM TIERE BESCHLAFEN LÄSST.» WAS HAT DAS TIER VERSCHULDET, WENN DER MENSCH EINE SÜNDE BEGANGEN HAT? ALLEIN, DA EIN MENSCH DURCH DIESES GESTRAUCHELT IST, DAHER BESTIMMTE DIE SCHRIFT, DASS ES GESTEINIGT WERDE. EINE ANDERE ERKLÄRUNG! DAMIT MAN, WENN DAS TIER ÜBER DIE STRASSE GEHT, NICHT SAGE: DAS IST ES, DESSENTWEGEN JENER GESTEINIGT WURDE.",
+ "DER GOTTESLÄSTERER IST NUR DANN STRAFBAR, WENN ER DEN GOTTESNAMENAUSGESPROCHEN HAT. R. JEHOŠUA͑ B. QORḤA SAGTE: WÄHREND DER GANZEN VERNEHMUNGDER ZEUGEN LÄSST MAN SIE DEN GOTTESNAMEN NUR DURCH EINE UMSCHREIBUNG AUSSPRECHEN, ZUM BEISPIEL «JOSESCHLAGE DEN JOSE»; IST DIE VERHANDLUNG BEENDET, SO WIRD DAS TODESURTEIL NICHT AUF DIE UMSCHREIBUNG HIN AUSGESPROCHEN, VIELMEHR ENTFERNT MAN JEDEN AUS DEM GERICHTSSAALE UND MAN BEFRAGT DEN GRÖSSTEN DER ZEUGEN, INDEM MAN ZU IHM SAGT: SPRICH WÖRTLICH NACH, WAS DU GEHÖRT HAST. ER SPRICHT DIES. DARAUF ERHEBEN SICH DIE RICHTER (AUF IHRE FÜSSE) UND REISSEN IHRE GEWÄNDER EIN, OHNE SIE JE ZUSAMMENZUNÄHEN. ALSDANN SPRICHT DER ZWEITE: ICH HÖRTE ES EBENFALLS, UND DER DRITTE: ICH EBENFALLS.",
+ "DER GÖTZENDIENER.» EINERLEI OB ER DEM GÖTZEN DIENT ODER IHM OPFERT, RÄUCHERT, LIBIERT, SICH VOR IHM NIEDERWIRFT, IHN ALS GOTT ANERKENNTODER VOR IHM SPRICHT: DU BIST MEIN GOTT. WER ABER EINEN GÖTZEN UMARMT, KÜSST, VOR IHM FEGT, SPRENGT, IHN BADET, PARFÜMIERT, ANKLEIDET ODER BESCHUHT, ÜBERTRITT NUR EIN VERBOT. WER IN SEINEM NAMEN EIN GELÖBNIS ABLEGT ODER ERFÜLLT, ÜBERTRITT EIN VERBOT. DIE LEIBESENTLEERUNG VOR DEM BAA͑L PEO͑R IST EINE VEREHRUNG DESSELBEN; DAS WERFEN EINES STEINES VOR DEM MERKURIUS IST EINE VEREHRUNG DESSELBEN.",
+ "WER VON SEINEN KINDERN FÜR DEN MOLEKH HERGIBT, IST NUR DANN SCHULDIG, WENN ER DAS KIND ÜBERGIBT UND DURCHS FEUER FÜHRT. HAT ER ES FÜR DEN MOLEKH ÜBERGEBEN, JEDOCH NICHT DURCHS FEUER GEFÜHRT, ODER DURCHS FEUER GEFÜHRT, JEDOCH NICHT FÜR DEN MOLEKH ÜBERGEBEN, SO IST ER NIGHT SCHULDIG; NUR WENN ER ES FÜR DEN MOLEKH ÜBERGEBEN UND DURCHS FEUER GEFÜHRT HAT. DER TOTENBESCHWÖRER, DAS IST DER PYTHON, DER AUS SEINEN ACHSELHÖHLEN SPRECHEN LÄSST. DER WAHRSAGER, DAS IST DER, DER AUS SEINEM MUNDE SPRECHEN LÄSST. DIESE SIND DURCH STEINIGUNG HINZURICHTEN, UND WER SIE BEFRAGT, ÜBERTRITT EINE WARNUNG.",
+ "WER DEN ŠABBATH ENTWEIHT; IN EINEM FALLE, WENN MAN BEI VORSATZ DER AUSROTTUNGSSTRAFE VERFÄLLT UND BEI VERSEHEN EIN SÜNDOPFER DARBRINGEN MUSS. WER VATER UND MUTTER FLUCHT, IST NUR DANN SCHULDIG, WENN ER IHNEN BEIM GOTTESNAMEN FLUCHT; FLUCHTE ER IHNEN BEI EINER UMSCHREIBUNG DES GOTTESNAMENS, SO IST ER NACH R. MEI͑R SCHULDIG UND NACH DEN WEISEN FREI.",
+ "WER EINE VERLOBTE JUNGFRAU BESCHLÄFT, IST NUR DANN STRAFBAR, WENN SIE GROSSJÄHRTG, JUNGFRAU UND VERLOBT IST, UND IM HAUSE IHRES VATERS WEILT. HABEN ZWEI SIE BESCHLAFEN, SO WIRD DER ERSTE DURCH STEINIGUNG UND DER ZWEITE DURCH ERDROSSELUNGHINGERICHTET.",
+ "DER VERFÜHRER.» NUR EIN GEMEINER; WENN ER EINEN EINZELNENVERFÜHRT, WENN ER BEISPIELSWEISE ZU EINEM SPRICHT: AN JENEM ORTE BEFINDET SICH EINE GOTTHEIT, DAS ISST SIE, DAS TRINKT SIE, DAS IST IHR GUTES WIRKEN UND DAS IST IHR SCHLECHTES WIRKEN. BEI ALLEN IN DER TORA GENANNTEN MIT DER TODESSTRAFE BEDROHTEN STELLT MAN KEINE ZEUGEN IM HINTERHALTE AUF, AUSGENOMMEN DIESE. SAGTE ER DIES ZWEIEN, SO SIND SIE SELBER SEINE BELASTUNGSZEUGEN; SIE BRINGEN IHN VOR DAS GERICHTUND MAN STEINIGT IHN. SAGTE ER DIES ZU EINEM, SO SAGE ER, ER HABE FREUNDE, DIE GEFALLEN DARAN FINDENWÜRDEN; WENN ER ABER SCHLAU IST UND ES VOR JENEN NICHT SPRECHEN WILL, SO VERSTECKE MAN ZEUGEN HINTER EINER MAUER, UND DIESER SPRECHE ZU IHM: WIEDERHOLE MIR NUN UNTER UNS, WAS DU MIR GESAGT HAST. TUT ER DIES, SO SPRECHE ER ZU IHM: WIE SOLLTEN WIR UNSEREN GOTT IM HIMMEL VERLASSEN UND HOLZ UND STEIN VEREHREN GEHEN!? TRITT ER DAVON ZURÜCK, SO IST ES RECHT, WENN ER ABER SAGT, DIES SEI UNSERE PFLICHT UND SO SEI ES GUT FÜR UNS, SO BRINGEN IHN DIE HINTER DER MAUER STEHENDEN ZEUGEN VOR DAS GERICHT, UND MAN STEINIGE IHN. WENN JEMAND SAGT: ICH WILL DEM GÖTZEN DIENEN; ICH WILL GEHEN UND IHM DIENEN; WIR WOLLEN GEHEN UND IHM DIENEN; ICH WILL IHM OPFERN; ICH WILL GEHEN UND IHM OPFERN; WIR WOLLEN GEHEN UND IHM OPFERN; ICH WILL IHM RÄUCHERN; ICH WILL GEHEN UND IHM RÄUCHERN; WIR WOLLEN GEHEN UND IHM RÄUCHERN; ICH WILL IHM LIBIEREN; ICH WILL GEHEN UND IHM LIBIEREN; WIR WOLLEN GEHEN UND IHM LIBIEREN; ICH WILL MICH VOR IHM NIEDERWERFEN; ICH WILL GEHEN UND MICH VOR IHM NIEDERWERFEN; WIR WOLLEN GEHEN UND UNS VOR IHM NIEDERW ERFEN. DER VERLEITER.» DAS IST DER, WELCHER SAGT, LASST UNS GEHEN UND GÖTZEN DIENEN. «DER ZAUBERER.» NUR WENN ER EINE TÄTIGKEIT AUSÜBT, NICHT ABER, WENN ER NUR EINE AUGENTÄUSCHUNG VORFÜHRT. R. A͑QIBA SAGTE IM NAMEN R. JEHOŠUA͑S: ZWEI LESEN GURKEN, EINER LIEST UND IST FREI, DER ANDERE ABER LIEST UND IST STRAFBAR; DER DABEI EINE TÄTIGKEIT AUSÜBT, IST STRAFBAR, DER NUR EINE AUGENTÄUSCHUNG VORFÜHRT, IST FREI. DER VERLEITER.» DAS IST DER, WELCHER SAGT, LASST UNS GEHEN UND GÖTZEN DIENEN.",
+ "«DER ZAUBERER.» NUR WENN ER EINE TÄTIGKEIT AUSÜBT, NICHT ABER, WENN ER NUR EINE AUGENTÄUSCHUNG VORFÜHRT. R. A͑QIBA SAGTE IM NAMEN R. JEHOŠUA͑S: ZWEI LESEN GURKEN, EINER LIEST UND IST FREI, DER ANDERE ABER LIEST UND IST STRAFBAR; DER DABEI EINE TÄTIGKEIT AUSÜBT, IST STRAFBAR, DER NUR EINE AUGENTÄUSCHUNG VORFÜHRT, IST FREI."
+ ],
+ [
+ "DER MISSRATENE UND WIDERSPENSTIGE SOHN.» VON WANN AB UNTERLIEGT ER DEM GESETZE VOM MISSRATENEN UND WIDERSPENSTIGEN SOHNE? SOBALD ER ZWEI HAARE BEKOMMEN HAT, BIS IHM RINGSHERUM EIN BART GEWACHSEN IST. DER UNTERE BART UND NICHT DER OBERE, NUR BEDIENEN SICH DIE WEISEN EINES EUPHEMISTISCHEN AUSDRUCKES. DENN ES HEISST:wenn ein Mann einen Sohn hat, EINEN SOHN UND NICHT EINE TOCHTER, EINEN SOHN UND NICHT EINEN ERWACHSENEN MANN, EIN MINDERJÄHRIGER IST STRAFFREI, DA ER NOCH NICHT DEN GESETZESPFLICHTEN UNTERLIEGT.",
+ "WANN WIRD ER STRAFBAR? WENN ER EIN TRITEMORFLEISCH GEGESSEN UND EIN HALBES LOG ITALISCHEN WEIN GETRUNKEN HAT. R. JOSE SAGT, EINE MINE FLEISCH UND EIN LOG WEIN. HAT ER ES BEI EINEM GASTMAHLE GELEGENTLICH EINER GOTTGEFÄLLIGEN HANDLUNG GEGESSEN, ODER GELEGENTLICH DER INTERKALATION DES NEUMONDES, ODER ALS ZWEITEN ZEHNTENIN JERUŠALEM, ODER AAS, TOTVERLETZTES, EKELUND KRIECHTIERE, ODER UNVERZEHNTETES, ERSTEN ZEHNTEN, VON DEM DIE HEBE NICHT ENTRICHTET WURDE UND ZWEITEN ZEHNTEN UND GEHEILIGTES, DIE NIGHT AUSGELÖST WAREN, ODER ETWAS, WODURCH ER EIN GEBOT AUSGEÜBT ODER EIN VERBOT ÜBERTRETEN HAT, ODER HAT ER JEDE ANDERE SPEISE GEGESSEN, ABER KEIN FLEISCH, JEDES ANDERE GETRÄNK GETRUNKEN, ABER KEINEN WEIN, SO GILT ER NICHT ALS MISSRATENER UND ABTRÜNNIGER SOHN; NUR WENN ER FLEISCH GEGESSEN UND WEIN GETRUNKEN HAT, DENN ES HEISST:ein Schlemmer und ein Saufbold. UND OBGLEICH ES DAFÜRKEINEN BEWEIS GIBT, SO GIBT ES DOCH EINE ANDEUTUNG, DENN ES HEISST:sei nicht unter den Weinsäufern und unter den Fleischverprassern.",
+ "HAT ER VON SEINEM VATER GESTOHLEN UND ES IM GEBIETE SEINES VATERS VERZEHRT, ODER VON FREMDEN UND ES IM GEBIETE VON FREMDEN VERZEHRT, ODER VON FREMDEN UND ES IM GEBIETE SEINES VATERS VERZEHRT, SO GILT ER DADURCH NICHT ALS MISSRATENER UND ABTRÜNNIGER SOHN; NUR WENN ER VON SEINEM VATER GESTOHLEN UND ES IM GEBIETE VON FREMDEN GEGESSEN HAT. R. JEHUDA SAGT, NUR WENN ER VON SEINEM VATER UND SEINER MUTTER GESTOHLEN HAT.",
+ "WENN SEIN VATER ESWILL UND SEINE MUTTER NICHT, ODER WENN SEIN VATER ES NICHT WILL UND SEINE MUTTER WOHL, SO GILT ER NICHT ALS MISSRATENER UND WIDERSPENSTIGER SOHN; NUR WENN BEIDE ES WOLLEN. R. JEHUDA SAGTE: IST SEINE MUTTER FÜR SEINEN VATER NICHT GEEIGNET, SO GILT ER NICHT ALS MISSRATENER UND WIDERSPENSTIGER SOHN. IST EINER VON IHNEN EINHÄNDIG, LAHM, STUMM, BLIND ODER TAUB, SO GILT ER NICHT ALS MISSRATENER UND WIDERSPENSTIGER SOHN, DENN ES HEISST: sein Vater und seine Mutter sollen ihn ergreifen, KEINE EINHÄNDIGEN; sie sollen ihn hinausführen, KEINE LAHMEN; sie sollen sprechen, KEINE STUMMEN; dieser, unser Sohn, KEINE BLINDEN; er hört nicht auf unsere Mahnung, KEINE TAUBEN. MAN WARNE IHN VOR DREI PERSONEN UND GEISSELE IHN; WIEDERHOLTE ER SEINE AUSARTUNG, SO IST ER DURCH DREIUNDZWANZIG RICHTER ABZUURTEILEN. ER IST NUR DANN ZU STEINIGEN, WENN DIE DREI ERSTEREN ZUGEGEN SIND, DENN ES HEISST: dieser, unser Sohn, DIESER IST ES, DER VOR EUCH GEGEISSELT WORDEN IST. IST ER VOR SEINER ABURTEILUNG ENTFLOHEN, WORAUF IHM UNTEN RINGSHERUMEIN BART GEWACHSEN IST, SO BLEIBT ER STRAFFREI; IST ER NACH SEINER ABURTEILUNG ENTFLOHEN, WORAUF IHM UNTEN RINGSHERUM EIN BART GEWACHSEN IST, SO IST ER STRAFBAR.",
+ "DR MISSRATENE UND WIDERSPENSTIGE SOHN WIRD NUR WEGEN SEINES ENDES GERICHTET; MAG ER LIEBER UNBELASTET STERBEN ALS MIT SÜNDEN BELASTET. DER TOD DER FREVLER IST EINE WOHLTAT FÜR SIE SELBER UND EINE WOHLTAT FÜR DIE WELT; DER DER FROMMEN IST EIN UNGLÜCK FÜR SIE SELBER UND EIN UNGLÜCK FÜR DIE WELT. WEIN UND SCHLAF FÜR DIE FREVLER IST EINE WOHLTAT FÜR SIE SELBER UND EINE WOHLTAT FÜR DIE WELT; FÜR DIE FROMMEN SIND SIE EIN UNGLÜCK FÜR SIE SELBER UND EIN UNGLÜCK FÜR DIE WELT. DIE ZERSTREUUNG DER FREVLER IST EINE WOHLTAT FÜR SIE SELBER UND EINE WOHLTAT FÜR DIE WELT; DIE DER FROMMEN IST EIN UNGLÜCK FÜR SIE SELBER UND EIN UNGLÜCK FÜR DIE WELT. DIE EINIGKEIT DER FREVLER IST EIN UNGLÜCK FÜR SIE SELBER UND EIN UNGLÜCK FÜR DIE WELT; DIE DER FROMMEN IST EINE WOHLTAT FÜR SIE SELBER UND EINE WOHLTAT FÜR DIE WELT. DIE BEHAGLICHKEIT DER FREVLER IST EIN UNGLÜCK FÜR SIE SELBER UND EIN UNGLÜCK FÜR DIE WELT; DIE DER FROMMEN IST EINE WOHLTAT FÜR SIE SELBER UND EINE WOHLTAT FÜR DIE WELT.",
+ "DER EINBRECHERWIRD WEGEN SEINES ENDES GERICHTET. WER BEI EINEM EINBRUCHE EIN FASS ZERBRICHT, IST, WENN MAN SEINETWEGEN BLUTSCHULD AUF SICH LÄDT, ERSATZPFLICHTIG, WENN ABER NICHT, SO IST ER FREI.",
+ "FOLGENDE HALTEMAN MIT IHREM LEBEN ZURÜCK: WER JEMAND VERFOLGT, UM IHN ZU TÖTEN, UND WER EINE MÄNNLICHE PERSON ODER EIN VERLOBTES MÄDCHEN VERFOLGT. WER ABER EINEM TIERE NACHLÄUFT, ODER IM BEGRIFF IST, DEN ŠABBATH ZU ENTWEIHEN ODER GÖTZENDIENST ZU TREIBEN, DEN DARF MAN NICHT DURCH SEIN LEBEN ZURÜCKHALTEN."
+ ],
+ [
+ "FOLGENDE WERDEN DURCH VERBRENNUNG HINGERICHTET: WER EINE FRAU UND IHRE TOCHTER BESCHLAFEN HAT, UND EINE PRIESTERSTOCHTER, DIE GEHURT HAT. UNTER ‘FRAU UND IHRE TOCHTER’ SIND EINBEGRIFFEN: SEINE EIGENE TOCHTER, DIE TOCHTER SEINER TOCHTER, DIE TOCHTER SEINES SOHNES, DIE TOCHTER SEINER FRAU, DIE TOCHTER IHRER TOCHTER, DIE TOCHTER IHRES SOHNES, SEINE SCHWIEGERMUTTER, DIE MUTTER SEINER SCHWIEGERMUTTER UND DIE MUTTER SEINES SCHWIEGERVATERS. FOLGENDE WERDEN DURCH ENTHAUPTUNG HINGERICHTET: DER MÖRDER UND DIE EINWOHNER EINER ABTRÜNNIGEN STADT. WENN EIN MÖRDER SEINEN NÄCHSTEN MIT EINEM STEINE ODER MIT EINEM EISEN ERSCHLAGEN, ODER INS WASSER ODER INS FEUER ZURÜCKGEDRÜCKTHAT, SODASS ER NICHT MEHR HERAUSKOMMEN KONNTE, UND ER GESTORBEN IST, SO IST ER SCHULDIG. WENN ER IHN ABER INS WASSER ODER INS FEUER HINEINGESTOSSEN HAT UND ER NOCH HERAUSKOMMEN KONNTE, ER ABER GESTORBEN IST, SO IST ER FREI. HAT JEMAND AUF EINEN EINEN HUND GEHETZT, HAT JEMAND AUF EINEN EINE SCHLANGE GEHETZT, SO IST ER FREI; HAT ER IHN VON EINER SCHLANGE BEISSEN LASSEN, SO IST ER NACH R. JEHUDA SCHULDIG UND NACH DEN WEISEN FREI. WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EINEN SCHLAG MIT EINEM STEINE ODER MIT DER FAUST VERSETZT HAT, DEN MAN ALS TÖDLICH SCHÄTZTE, DIE KRANKHEIT ABER NACHLÄSST, SPÄTER JEDOCH ZUNIMMT UND JENER STIRBT, SO IST ER SCHULDIG; R. NEḤEMJA SAGT, ER SEI FREI, DENN DIE SACHE HAT EINEN GRUND.",
+ "WENN ER IN DER ABSICHT, EIN TIER ZU TÖTEN, EINEN MENSCHEN GETÖTET HAT, ODER EINEN NICHTJUDEN ZU TÖTEN, EINEN JISRAÉLITEN GETÖTET HAT, ODER EINE FEHLGEBURT ZU TÖTEN, EIN LEBENSFÄHIGES KIND GETÖTET HAT, SO IST ER FREI. WENN ER IHN AUF DIE LENDEN TREFFEN WOLLTE, WO DER SCHLAG NIGHT TÖDLICH WÄRE, UND IHN AUFS HERZ GETROFFEN HAT, WO ER TÖDLICH WAR, UND DIESER GESTORBEN IST, ODER WENN ER IHN AUF DIE LENDEN GETROFFEN HAT, WO ER NIGHT TÖDLICH IST, UND ER DENNOCH GESTORBEN IST, ODER WENN ER EINEN ERWACHSENEN TREFFEN WOLLTE, BEI DEM DER SCHLAG NICHT TÖDLICH WÄRE, UND EIN KIND GETROFFEN HAT, BEI DEM DER SCHLAG TÖDLICH WAR, UND ES GESTORBEN IST, ODER WENN ER EIN KIND TREFFEN WOLLTE, BEI DEM DER SCHLAG TÖDLICH WÄRE, UND ER EINEN ERWACHSENEN GETROFFEN HAT, BEI DEM DER SCHLAG NICHT TÖDLICH WAR, UND DIESER DENNOCH GESTORBEN IST, SO IST ER FREI. WENN ER IHN ABER AUF DIE LENDEN TREFFEN WOLLTE, WO DER SCHLAG TÖDLICH WÄRE, UND ER IHN AUF DAS HERZ GETROFFEN HAT UND DIESER GESTORBEN IST, SO IST ER SCHULDIG. WENN ER EINEN ERWACHSENEN TREFFEN WOLLTE, BEI DEM DER SCHLAG TÖDLICH WÄRE, UND EIN KIND GETROFFEN HAT, UND ES GESTORBEN IST, SO IST ER SCHULDIG. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT, SELBST WENN ER IN DER ABSICHT, DEN EINEN ZU TÖTEN, EINEN ANDEREN GETÖTET HAT, SEI ER FREI.",
+ "WENN EIN MÖRDER UNTER ANDEREN VERMISCHTIST, SO SIND ALLE STRAFFREI. R. JEHUDA SAGT, MAN SPERRE SIE ALLE IN EINEN KERKER. SIND ZU VERSCHIEDENEN TODESARTEN VERURTEILTE MIT EINANDER VERMISCHT WORDEN, SO WERDEN SIE DURCH DIE LEICHTERE TODESART HINGERICHTET. WENN ZU STEINIGENDE UNTER ZU VERBRENNENDE GEKOMMEN SIND, SO WERDEN SIE, WIE R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT, DURCH STEINIGUNG HINGERICHTET, DENN DIE VERBRENNUNG IST EINE SCHWERERE TODESART, UND WIE DIE WEISEN SAGEN, DURCH VERBRENNUNG, DENN DIE STEINIGUNG IST EINE SCHWERERE TODESART. R. ŠIMO͑N SPRACH ZU IHNEN: WÄRE DIE VERBRENNUNG NICHT EINE SCHWERERE TODESART, SO WÜRDE SIE JA NICHT FÜR DIE HURENDE PRIESTERSTOCHTER BESTIMMT WORDEN SEIN!? JENE ERWIDERTEN IHM: WÄRE DIE STEINIGUNG NICHT EINE SCHWERERE TODESART, SO WÜRDE SIE JA NICHT FÜR DEN GOTTESLÄSTERER UND DEN GÖTZENDIENER BESTIMMT WORDEN SEIN!? WENN ZU ENTHAUPTENDE UNTER ZU ERDROSSELNDE, SO WERDEN SIE, WIE R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT, DURCH DAS SCHWERT, UND WIE DIE WEISEN SAGEN, DURCH ERDROSSELUNG HINGERICHTET.",
+ "WER SICH ZWEI TODESSTRAFEN ZUGEZOGEN HAT, WIRD DURCH DIE SCHWERERE TODESART HINGERICHTET. WER EINE SÜNDE BEGANGEN HAT, AUF DIE ZWEI TODESSTRAFEN GESETZT SIND, WIRD DURCH DIE STRENGERE HINGERICHTET; R. JOSE SAGT, ER WERDE WEGEN DER ZUERST ANHAFTENDEN SÜNDE BESTRAFT.",
+ "WER EINMAL UND ZWEIMAL GEGEISSELT WORDEN IST, DEN SPERRT DAS GERICHT IN EINEN KERKER UND GIBT IHM GERSTE ZU ESSEN, BIS IHM DER BAUCH PLATZT.WER EINEN OHNE ZEUGEN GETÖTET HAT, DEN SPERRT MAN IN EINEN KERKER UND GIBT IHM KNAPP BROT ZU ESSEN UND KNAPP WASSER.",
+ "WER EINE SCHALE STIEHLT, DEM GOTTESNAMEN BEIM QOSEMflucht, ODER EINE ARAMÄERINBESCHLÄFT, DEN DÜRFEN EIFERER NIEDERSTOSSEN. WENN EIN PRIESTER DEN TEMPELDIENST IN UNREINHEIT VERRICHTET, SO BRINGEN IHN SEINE PRIESTERBRÜDER NICHT VOR DAS GERICHT, VIELMEHR FÜHREN IHN DIE PRIESTERJÜNGLINGE AUSSERHALB DES TEMPELS HINAUS UND ZERSCHMETTERN IHM DAS GEHIRN MIT HOLZSCHEITEN. WENN EIN GEMEINER DEN DIENST IM TEMPEL VERRICHTET, SO WIRD ER, WIE R. A͑QIBA SAGT, DURCH ERDROSSELUNG, UND WIE DIE WEISEN SAGEN, DURCH EINE HIMMLISCHE FÜGUNG GETÖTET."
+ ],
+ [
+ "GANZ JISRAÉL HAT EINEN ANTEIL AN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT, DENN ES HEISST: dein Volk besteht aus lauter Gerechten; für immer werden sie das Land in Besitz nehmen; es ist der Sproß meiner Pflanzung, das Werk meiner Hände zur Verherrlichung. FOLGENDE HABEN KEINEN ANTEIL AN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT: WER SAGT, DIE AUFERSTEHUNG DER TOTEN BEFINDE SICH NICHT IN DER TORA, WER SAGT, DIE TORA SEI NICHT VOM HIMMEL, UND DER GOTTESLEUGNER. R. A͑QIBA SAGT, AUCH WER DIE AUSSENSEITIGEN BÜCHER LIEST, UND WER ÜBER EINE WUNDE FLÜSTERT UND SPRICHT: Keine der Krankheiten, die ich über die Miçrijim gebracht, werde ich über dich bringen, denn ich, der Herr, bin dein Arzt. ABBA ŠAÚL SAGT, AUCH WER DEN GOTTESNAMEN BUCHSTÄBLICH AUSSPRICHT.",
+ "DREI KÖNIGE UND VIER GEMEINE HABEN KEINEN ANTEIL AN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT; DREI KÖNIGE: JEROBEA͑M, AḤÁB UND MENAŠE. R. JEHUDA SAGT, MENAŠE HABE EINEN ANTEIL AN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT, DENN ES HEISST:als er zu ihm betete, ließ, er sich von ihm erbitten; er erhörte sein Flehen und brachte ihn zurück nach Jerušalem in sein Königtum. JENE ENTGEGNETEN IHM: IN SEIN KÖNIGTUM BRACHTE ER IHN ZURÜCK, NICHT ABER IN DAS LEBEN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT. VIER GEMEINE: BILEA͑M, DOÉG, AḤITOPHEL UND GEḤZI.",
+ "DIE ZEITGENOSSEN DER SINTFLUT HABEN WEDER EINEN ANTEIL AN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT, NOCH WERDEN SIE ZUM JÜNGSTEN GERICHTE AUFERSTEHEN, DENN ES HEISST:es soll nicht ewig mein Geist über den Menschen Gericht halten, WEDER GERICHT NOCH GEIST. DIE ZEITGENOSSEN DER SPALTUNG HABEN KEINEN ANTEIL AN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT; DENN ES HEISST:da zerstreute sie der Herr von dort über die ganze Erde, (da zerstreute sie der Herr,) AUF DIESER WELT;und von dort zerstreute sie der Herr, FÜR DIE ZUKÜNFTIGE WELT. DIE LEUTE VON SEDOM HABEN KEINEN ANTEIL AN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT, DENN ES HEISST:und die Leute von Sedom waren sehr böse und sündhaft gegen den Herrn; BÖSE, AUF DIESER WELT; SÜNDHAFT, FÜR DIE ZUKÜNFTIGE WELT; SIE WERDEN ABER ZUM JÜNGSTEN GERICHTE AUFERSTEHEN. R. NEḤEMJA SAGT, WEDER DIESE NOCH JENE WERDEN ZUM JÜNGSTEN GERICHTE AUFERSTEHEN, DENN ES HEISST:darum werden die Frevler im Gerichte nicht stehen, noch die Sünder in der Gemeinde der Frommen. Darum werden die Frevler im Gericht nicht stehen, DAS SIND DIE ZEITGENOSSEN DER SINTFLUT; noch die Sünder in der Gemeinde der Frommen, DAS SIND DIE LEUTE VON SEDOM. MAN ENTGEGNETE IHM: SIE WERDEN NICHT STEHEN IN DER GEMEINDE DER FROMMEN, WOHL ABER WERDEN SIE IN DER GEMEINDE DER FREVLER STEHEN. DIE KUNDSCHAFTER HABEN KEINEN ANTEIL AN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT, DENN ES HEISST:die Männer, die das üble Gerücht über das Land ausgebracht hatten, starben durch eine Plage vor dem Herrn; STARBEN, AUF DIESER WELT; DURCH EINE PLAGE, FÜR DIE ZUKÜNFTIGE WELT. DIE ZEITGENOSSEN DER WÜSTEN WANDERUNG HABEN WEDER EINEN ANTEIL AN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT, NOCH WERDEN SIE ZUM JÜNGSTEN GERICHTE AUFERSTEHEN, DENN ES HEISST:in dieser Wüste sollen sie aufgerieben werden und da sollen sie sterben – so R. A͑QIBA. R. ELIE͑ZER SAGT, ÜBER SIE HEISSE ES:versammelt mir meine Frommen, die den Bund mit mir beim Opfer schlossen. DIE ROTTE QORAḤS WIRD NICHT WIEDER HERAUFKOMMEN, DENN ES HEISSTund die Erde bedeckte sie, AUF DIESER WELT; und sie verschwanden mitten aus der Gemeinde, FÜR DIE ZUKÜNFTIGE WELT – SO R. A͑QIBA. R. ELIE͑ZER SAGT, ÜBER SIE HEISSE ES:der Herr tötet und macht lebendig, er stürzt in die Unterwelt und führt herauf DIE ZEHN STÄMMEWERDEN NICHT MEHR ZURÜCKKEHREN, DENN ES HEISST: er schleuderte sie in ein anderes Land, wie diesen Tag, WIE DER TAG DAHINGEHT UND NICHT WIEDERKEHRT, EBENSO GINGEN SIE DAHIN UND KEHREN NICHT WIEDER – SO R. A͑QIBA. R. ELIE͑ZER SAGTE: WIE DER TAG DUNKEL, ABER WIEDER HELL WIRD, EBENSO WIRD ES DEN ZEHN STÄMMEN, DENEN ES DUNKEL GEWORDEN IST, DEREINST WIEDER HELL WERDEN.",
+ "DIE LEUTE EINER ABTRÜNNIGEN STADT HABEN KEINEN ANTEIL AN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT, DENN ES HEISST:es sind nichtswürdige Männer aus deiner Mitte hervorgegangen und haben die Einwohner ihrer Stadt abtrünnig gemacht. SIE WERDEN NUR DANN GETÖTET, WENN DIE VERLEITER AUS DERSELBEN STADT UND VOM SELBEN STAMME SIND, WENN DIE MEHRHEIT DER EINWOHNER VERLEITET WORDEN IST, UND DIE VERLEITER MÄNNER SIND. WURDEN SIE DURCH FRAUEN ODER MINDERJÄHRIGE VERLEITET, ODER WURDE NUR DIE MINDERHEIT DER EINWOHNER VERLEITET, ODER WAREN DIE VERLEITER AUSWÄRTIGE, SO WERDEN SIE ALS EINZELNE BEHANDELT: ZU IHRER VERURTEILUNG SIND FÜR JEDEN BESONDERS ZWEI ZEUGEN UND VERWARNUNG ERFORDERLICH. IN FOLGENDEM IST ES BEI EINZELNEN STRENGER ALS BEI EINER MEHRHEIT: EINZELNE WERDEN DURCH STEINIGUNG HINGERICHTET, DAHER BLEIBT IHR VERMÖGEN GERETTET, DIE MEHRHEIT ABER DURCH DAS SCHWERT, DAHER WIRD AUCH IHR VERMÖGEN VERNICHTET.",
+ "So sollst du die Bewohner jener Stadt mit dem Schwerte erschlagen; HIERAUS, DASS EINE VON ORT ZU ORT ZIEHENDE KARAWANE ESELTREIBER ODER KAMELFÜHRER SIE RETTE. ES HEISST: banne sie und alles, was darin ist, und ihr Vieh durch die Schneide des Schwertes; HIERAUS FOLGERTEN SIE, DASS DAS GUT DER FROMMEN, DAS SICH IN DIESER BEFINDET, VERNICHTET, UND DAS SICH AUSSERHALB BEFINDET, GERETTET WERDE; DAS DER FREVLER ABER WERDE VERNICHTET, EINERLEI OB ES SICH IN DIESER ODER AUSSERHALB DERSELBEN BEFINDET.",
+ "ES HEISST: ihre ganze Beute sollst du auf ihren Marktplatz zusammentragen &c. HAT SIE KEINEN MARKTPLATZ, SO IST DA EIN SOLCHER HERZURICHTEN; BEFINDET SICH IHR MARKTPLATZ AUSSERHALB DER STADT, SO ZIEHE MAN IHN HINEIN. ES HEISST: du sollst im Feuer verbrennen die Stadt samt ihrer ganzen Beute als Ganzopfer dem Herrn, deinem Gott; IHRE BEUTE, NICHT ABER DIE DEM HIMMEL GEHÖRENDE BEUTE; HIERAUS FOLGERTEN SIE, DASS MAN GEHEILIGTES, DAS SICH DARIN BEFINDET, AUSLÖSE, HEBE VERFAULEN LASSE, ZWEITEN ZEHNTEN UND HEILIGE SCHRIFTEN VERWAHRE. Als Ganzopfer dem Herrn, deinem Gott. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGTE: DER HEILIGE, GEPRIESEN SEI ER, SPRACH: WENN IHR AN DER ABTRÜNNIGEN STADT DAS RECHT ÜBT, SO RECHNE ICH ES EUCH AN, ALS WÜRDET IHR MIR GANZOPFER DARBRINGEN. Sie bleibe zum ewigen Schutthaufen; SIE DARF AUCH NICHT IN GEMÜSE- UND OBSTGÄRTEN VERWANDELT WERDEN – SO R. JOSE DER GALILÄER. R. A͑QIBA SAGTE:Sie soll nie mehr aufgebaut werden, SIE DARF NICHT WIEDER AUFGEBAUT WERDEN, WIE SIE FRÜHER WAR, WOHL ABER DARF SIE IN GEMÜSE- UND OBSTGÄRTEN VERWANDELT WERDEN. Nichts von dem mit dem Banne Belegten soll an deiner Hand kleben bleiben. SOLANGE SICH FREVLER AUF DER WELT BEFINDEN, BEFINDET SICH ZORNESGLUT AUF DER WELT, SIND DIE FREVLER AUS DER WELT GESCHWUNDEN, SO IST AUCH DIE ZORNESGLUT AUS DER WELT ENTWICHEN."
+ ],
+ [
+ "FOLGENDE WERDEN DURCH ERDROSSELUNG HINGERICHTET: WER VATER UND MUTTER SCHLÄGT, WER EINE JISRAÉLITISCHE PERSON STIEIILT, DER GEGEN DAS OBERSTE GERICHT SICH AUFLEHNENDE GELEHRTE, DER FALSCHE PROPHET, WER IM NAMEN EINES GÖTZEN WEISSAGT, WER EINE EHEFRAU BESCHLÄFT, DIE GEGEN EINE PRIESTERSTOCHTER UND IHREN BUHLEN AUSSAGENDEN ÜBERFÜHRTEN FALSCHZEUGEN.WER VATER UND MUTTER SCHLÄGT, IST NUR DANN STRAFBAR, WENN ER IHNEN EINE VERLETZUNG BEIGEBRACHT HAT. IN FOLGENDEM IST DAS FLUCHEN SCHWERER ALS DAS SCHLAGEN: WER IHNEN NACH DEM TODE FLUCHT, IST STRAFBAR, WER SIE ABER NACH DEM TODE SCHLÄGT, IST STRAFFREI. WER EINE JISRAÉLITISCHE PERSON STIEHLT, IST ERST DANN STRAFBAR, WENN ER SIE IN SEINEN BESITZ GEBRACHT HAT; R. JEHUDA SAGT, WENN ER SIE IN SEINEN BESITZ GEBRACHT UND SICH IHRER BEDIENT HAT, DENN ES HEISST:und ihn knechtet oder verkauft. WER SEINEN EIGENEN SOHN STIEHLT IST NACH R. JIŠMA͑ÉL, DEM SOHNE DES R. JOḤANAN B. BEROQA, STRAFBAR, UND NACH DEN WEISEN FREI. WER EINEN HALBSKLAVEN STIEHLT IST NACH R. JEHUDA STRAFBAR UND NACH DEN WEISEN FREI.",
+ "VOM GEGEN DAS OBERSTE GERICHT SICH AUFLEHNENDEN GELEHRTEN HEISST ES:wenn dir die Entscheidung einer Sache unbekannt ist. DA WAREN DREI GERICHTE; EINES BEFAND SICH AM EINGANGE DES TEMPELBERGES, EINES BEFAND SICH AM EINGANGE DES VORHOFES UND EINES BEFAND SICH IN DER QUADERHALLE. SIEKOMMEN ZU DEM, DAS SICH AM EINGANGE DES TEMPELBERGES BEFINDET, UND DIESER SPRICHT: SO ERKLÄRE ICH ES, UND SO ERKLÄREN ES MEINE KOLLEGEN; SO LEHRE ICH, UND SO LEHREN MEINE KOLLEGEN. HABEN DIESEDARÜBER ETWAS GEHÖRT, SO SAGEN SIE ES, WENN ABER NICHT, SO WENDEN SIE SICH AN DAS GERICHT, DAS SICH AM EINGANGE DES VORHOFES BEFINDET, UND DIESER SPRICHT: SO ERKLÄRE ICH ES, UND SO ERKLÄREN ES MEINE KOLLEGEN; SO LEHRE ICH, UND SO LEHREN MEINE KOLLEGEN. HABEN DIESE DARÜBER ETWAS GEHÖRT, SO SAGEN SIE ES, WENN ABER NICHT, SO WENDEN SIE SICH AN DAS GROSSE GERICHT IN DER QUADERHALLE, VON DEM DIE GESETZESKUNDE FÜR GANZ JISRAÉL AUSGEHT, WIE ES HEISST:die Stätte, die der Herr erwählen wird. WENN ER NACH SEINER STADT HEIMKEHRT UND WEITER SO LEHRT, WIE ER VORHER GELEHRTHAT, SO IST ER FREI, WENN ER ABER DANACH ZU HANDELN ENTSCHEIDET, SO IST ER SCHULDIG, DENN ES HEISST:der Mann aber, der vermessen handelt; ER IST ALSO NUR DANN SCHULDIG, WENN ER DANACH ZU HANDELN ENTSCHEIDET. WENN EIN SCHÜLER EINE ENTSCHEIDUNGTRIFFT, SO IST ER FREI; DIE ERSCHWERUNGIST SOMIT FÜR IHN EINE ERLEICHTERUNG.",
+ "STRENGER IST ES BEI DEN WORTEN DER SCHRIFTKUNDIGEN ALS BEI DEN WORTEN DER TORA: WENN JEMAND SAGT, ES GEBE KEINE TEPHILLINPFLICHT, UM DIE WORTE DER TORA ZU ÜBERTRETEN, SO IST ER FREI, WENN ER ABER SAGT: ES SEIEN FÜNF GEHÄUSEERFORDERLICH, UM ZU DEN WORTEN DER SCHRIFTKUNDIGENHINZUZUFÜGEN, SO IST ER SCHULDIG.",
+ "MAN TÖTET IHN WEDER DURCH DAS GERICHT SEINER STADT NOCH DURCH DAS GERICHT IN JABNE, VIELMEHR BRINGT MAN IHN ZUM OBERSTEN GERICHTE IN JERUŠALEM; DA BEWACHT MAN IHN BIS ZUM FESTE UND RICHTET IHN DANN HIN, DENN ES HEISST:und ganz Jisraélsoll hören und sich fürchten und fortan nicht mehr freveln – SO R. A͑QIBA. R. JEHUDA SAGT, MAN ZIEHE SEINE ABURTEILUNG NICHT IN DIE LÄNGE, VIELMEHR TÖTE MAN IHN SOFORT UND SENDE DURCH BOTEN SCHRIFTLICHE MITTEILUNG NACH ALLEN ORTEN: JENER MANN IST VOM GERICHT ZUM TODE VERURTEILT WORDEN.",
+ "EIN FALSCHER PROPHET IST, WER DAS PROPHEZEIT, WAS ER NICHT VERNOMMEN HAT UND WAS IHM NICHT GESAGT WORDEN IST. SEINE HINRICHTUNG ERFOLGT DURCH MENSCHEN; WER ABER SEINE PROPHEZEIUNG ZURÜCKHÄLT, ODER DIE WORTE DES PROPHETEN MISSACHTET, UND DER PROPHET, DER SEINE EIGENEN WORTE ÜBERTRITT, WIRD DURCH DEN HIMMEL GETÖTET, DENN ES HEISST:ich werde es von ihm fordern.",
+ "«WER IM NAMEN EINES GÖTZEN WEISSAGT;» WENN ER SAGT: SO SAGTE DER GÖTZE, SELBST WENN ES MIT DER HALAKHA ÜBEREINSTIMMT, INDEM ER DAS UNREINE FÜR UNREIN UND DAS REINE FÜR REIN ERKLÄRT. «WER EINE EHEFRAU BESCHLÄFT;» SOBALD SIE HINSICHTLICH DER HEIRAT IN DIE GEWALT DES EHEMANNES ÜBERGEGANGEN IST, SELBST WENN ER IHR NOCH NICHT BEIGEWOHNT HAT; WER SIE BESCHLÄFT, WIRD DURCH ERDROSSELUNG HINGERICHTET. «DIE GEGEN EINE PRIESTERSTOCHTER UND IHREN BUHLEN AUSSAGENDEN ÜBERFÜHRTEN FALSCHZEUGEN;» ALLE ÜBERFÜHRTEN FALSCHZEUGEN VERFALLEN DEMSELBEN TODE ZUERST, AUSGENOMMEN DIE ÜBERFÜHRTEN FALSCHZEUGEN WIDER EINE PRIESTERSTOCHTER UND IHREN BUHLEN."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8dae18724ab8d2b479ae4e0123be0fc5380299d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein",
+ "versionTitle": "The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "CC-BY",
+ "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "המשנה עם פירושי רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, רבי שרגא זילברשטיין",
+ "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "\tMonetary litigations (are presided over) by three (judges) [(even) non-experts, the rabbis not requiring three experts, so that \"the door not be closed to loans,\" (i.e., lest the debtor deny (the loan) and he (the creditor) not find experts to force him to law. But one expert or three non-experts suffice.] Thefts and injuries (are presided over) by three, [\"elohim\" (\"judges\") being written three times in the section on shomrim (caretakers) (Exodus 22), whence we derive that three experts are required.] (Litigations of) nezek (damage), [a man or a mued (\"habitual damager\") ox, which pay a complete nezek for damaging], a half-nezek, [a tam (\"non-habitual damager\") ox, which caused damage. (Even though nezek comes under chavaloth (injuries), since \"double payment\" (kefel) and \"four and five\" payment are to be taught, where the payment is not equal to the damage, but more, half-nezek is also taught, where the payment is, likewise, not equal to the damage, but less. And since half-nezek is taught, nezek is also taught)], double payment, and \"four and five\" payment (are presided over) by three. (Litigations of) ravishment and seduction and imputation of \"an evil name\" [viz.: (Deuteronomy 22:17): \"I did not find your daughter to be a virgin,\" (Ibid. 19): \"Then they shall fine him a hundred (shekels of) silver\"] (are presided over) by three. These are the words of R. Meir. And the sages say: Imputations of an evil name (are presided over) by twenty-three, for they may involve capital punishment. [For if it were (found to be) true that she was adulterous, then she is stoned; and capital cases are tried by twenty-three (1:4).]",
+ "\t(Adjudications of) [forty] stripes (are presided over) by three, [it being written (Deuteronomy 25:1): \"And they shall draw near to judgment, and they (two judges) shall judge them,\" and since beth-din cannot be evenly balanced, a judge is added, making three.] R. Yishmael says: \"Twenty-three. [He derives it by identity: \"wicked\"-\"wicked,\" it being written here (in respect to stripes) (Deuteronomy 25:1): \"And they shall incriminate the wicked one,\" and, elsewhere, (Numbers 35:31): \"…who is a wicked one (condemned) to die.\" Just as there, twenty-three, so here, twenty-three.] Intercalation of the month [i.e., sanctification of the new moon (Since \"intercalation of the year\" follows, \"intercalation of the month\" is taught.)] (is presided over) by three. Intercalation of the year (is presided over) by three. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: They begin with three, deliberate with five, and end with seven. [They begin with three to see if it is necessary to seat a beth-din for this. If one of the three says that beth-din must sit and see if it is necessary to intercalate the year because of the season, the spring, or the fruits, and two say that it is not necessary, that there is no doubt here, that of a certainty, intercalation is not called for, the one is in the minority and he is overruled. If two say to sit, and one, not to sit, the two are followed, and two more are added to deliberate the matter, so that now there are five. If two say that it is necessary to intercalate, and three, that it is not, the two are in the minority and they are overruled. If two say that it is not necessary, and three, that it is, the majority is followed and another two are added, making seven, who intercalate the year. The Gemara explains that these \"three, five, and seven\" correspond to the priestly blessing, there being three words in the first verse, five in the second, and seven in the last. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.] And if they ended with three, it is (nevertheless) intercalated.",
+ "\tThe placing of the hands of the elders (semichath zekenim) [on the bullock of he'elam davar, (communal transgression through judicial error)] (required three judges.) [Also implied is the appointment of a judge — the senior, ordained judge requiring two to join him when he wishes to ordain a sage to be called \"Rebbi\" and to rule in penalty (knass) judgments. The term \"semichah\" is used by reason of (Numbers 28:23): \"And he (Moses) placed his hands upon him\" (Joshua). It is not necessary (in our instance) that he place his hands upon him but that he add the title \"Rebbi\" to his name. There is no semichah outside of Eretz Yisrael, but both the ordainer and the one to be ordained must be in Eretz Yisrael. If this condition is satisfied, he has the authority to rule in knass judgment even outside of Eretz Yisrael, Sanhedrin functioning both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it following ordination in Eretz Yisrael. Rambam writes that it seems to him that at the present time, when there is no ordination, one man by another back to Moshe Rabbeinu, if all of the sages in Eretz Yisrael agreed to ordain one or many, they are duly ordained, and they are authorized to rule in knass judgments and to ordain others. The matter requires determination.] (\"the placing of the hands of the elders\") and the breaking of the neck of the heifer (see Deuteronomy 21:2) require three judges, [it being written (Leviticus 4:15): \"the elders of the congregation.\" The minimum of elders is two, and a beth-din cannot be evenly balanced, so that another is added, making three.] These are the words of R. Shimon. R. Yehudah says: Five are required, [viz.: \"And they shall place\" — two; \"the elders\" — two, and a beth-din cannot be evenly balanced, so that another is added, making five. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.] Chalitzah (levirate refusal) and miunin (refusals) require three. [(\"Chalitzah\":) It is written (Deuteronomy 25:9): \"Then his yevamah shall draw near to him before the eyes of the elders\": \"elders\" — two; and a beth-din cannot be evenly balanced, so that another is added, making three. The two others that are added are (added in order) to publicize the matter. (\"miunin\":) If a minor orphan girl were married to a man by her mother and brothers with her consent, and she (later) wished to leave him by miun (\"refusal\"), the miun must be before three judges. (In Yevamoth it is indicated that miun before two suffices.)] Neta revai (planting of the fourth year) [if he comes to redeem it for money] and [similarly] second-tithe, whose monetary value is not known [e.g., rotted fruit, which has no fixed price], and (Temple) dedications, [if one comes to redeem them] require three judges. Valuations in movables require three [i.e., If one said: \"the valuation of that man is upon me\" (to give to the Temple), and he had no money to give as per the monies specified in the section (on valuations), and he desired to give it in movables, three judges are required to assess those movables.] R. Yehudah said: One of them must be a Cohein, [it being written in respect to valuations (Leviticus 27:12): \"as the Cohein valuates it for you.\"] And (valuations) in land require nine and a Cohein. [If he has no movables and he comes to give land, ten men, one of them a Cohein, must assess that land for the imposed valuation.] And the same applies for (the worth of) a man. [If he said: \"The worth of that man is upon me\" (to give to the Temple), in which instance the man's market value is assessed and the monies given, that assessment, likewise, requires ten men, one of them a Cohein.]",
+ "\tCapital cases require twenty-three judges. (Judgment of) the active and the passive participant in sodomy requires twenty-three, it being written (Leviticus 20:16): \"And you shall kill the woman and the beast,\" [the active participant, which is likened to the woman. Just as the woman (is judged) by twenty-three, so is the beast in this instance], and it is written (Ibid. 15): \"and the beast (in this instance, the passive participant) shall you kill\" — whence we derive (twenty-three judges for) the active and the passive participant.] An ox facing stoning requires twenty-three judges, it being written (Exodus 21:29): \"The ox shall be stoned, and also its owner shall die\" — As the death of the owner, so is the death of the ox [i.e., Just as the owner in capital cases is judged by twenty-three, so, etc.] The death (by stoning) of the wolf, the lion, the bear, the tiger, the leopard, and the snake requires twenty-three judges. R. Eliezer says: Whoever is first to kill them merits it, [and it is not necessary to bring them to beth-din.] R. Akiva says: Their death requires twenty-three judges. [The Gemara explains that the first tanna and R. Akiva differ with respect to a snake. The first tanna requires twenty-three judges for putting a snake to death, whereas R. Akiva requires that number for wolf, lion, bear, tiger, and leopard, whereas with a snake — \"Whoever comes first merits it\"; for he rids the world of a scourge. The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.]",
+ "\tA tribe and a false prophet and a high-priest are not judged except by a beth-din of seventy-one. [(\"a tribe\":) the majority of a tribe that served idols, it being written (Deuteronomy 17:5): \"Then you shall take that man or that woman … to your gates\": A man or a woman you take out to your gates (of judgment), but you do not take out a tribe to your gates, but to the Great Beth-din (of seventy-one judges.) (\"a false prophet\":) This is derived by identity: \"thing-thing\" from a rebellious elder, it being written here (in respect to a false prophet (Deuteronomy 18:20): \"…who shall presume to speak a thing,\" and in respect to a rebellious elder (Ibid. 17:8): \"If there be hidden from you a thing.\" Just as a rebellious elder is judged by the Great Beth-din, viz. (Ibid.): \"Then you shall arise and go up to the place, etc.\", so a false prophet is judged by the Great Beth-din. (\"a high-priest\":) it being written (Exodus 18:22): \"The great thing shall they bring to you\": The things of the \"great one\" (i.e., the high-priest) shall they bring to you (Moses)\", and Moses was in place of seventy-one.] And the people are not taken out to a \"permitted\" war. [(Every war except the war with the seven nations and the war with Amalek is called a \"permitted\" war)] except by a beth-din of seventy-one, [it being written in respect to David (I Chronicles 27:34): \"and after Achitofel came Benayahu ben Yehoyada\": Achitofel — the counselor; Benayahu ben Yehoyada — the Sanhedrin, of which he (Benayahu) was the mufla (the \"elect\"), whom all followed.] Additions to the city, [Jerusalem, whose sanctity is greater than that of the rest of Eretz Yisrael] and to the azaroth (the Temple courts), [whose sanctity is greater than that of Jerusalem] are made only by a beth-din of seventy-one. [It is not permitted to originate sanctity except through a beth-din of seventy-one, it being written (Exodus 25:9): \"According to all that I show you … and thus shall you do,\" for (subsequent) generations, viz.: Just as the tabernacle was sanctified through Moses, who was in place of the Great Sanhedrin, so, for (subsequent) generations, additions to the city and to the azaroth are made by the Great Sanhedrin.] Sanhedraoth (of twenty-three judges) are not made for the tribes except by a beth-din of seventy-one, [as we find with Moses, who established sanhedraoth, Moses being in place of seventy-one.] A \"condemned city\" is declared only by a beth-din of seventy-one, [it being written (Deuteronomy 17:5): \"Then you shall take out that man or that women … to your gates\": You take out the man or woman to your \"gates,\" i.e., to the beth-din (of twenty-three) in your gates; but you do not take out the entire city to your gates, but to the \"distinctive gate,\" (i.e., the Great Sanhedrin)]. And a \"condemned city\" is not made in a border city, [one between Eretz Yisrael and the land of the nations, it being written (Deuteronomy 13:14): \"from your midst,\" and not from a border city. The rationale: Lest the nations hear and come and ravage Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the city is not made \"a heap forever,\" as indicated for a condemned city, but its inhabitants are killed alone.] And not three, but they make one or two. [i.e., One beth-din does not make three cities \"condemned cities\" in one place, close to one another. But they do make them in two or three places.]",
+ "\tThe Great Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one judges, and the lesser sanhedrin, of twenty-three. Whence is it derived that the Great Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one? From (Numbers 11:16): \"Gather unto Me seventy men of the elders of Israel,\" and Moses over them, [viz. (Ibid 17): \"And they shall bear with you\" — together with you], making seventy-one. R. Yehudah says: Seventy. [He expounds \"with you\" as \"similar to you,\" and not that he must sit with them in judgment. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] And whence is it derived that the lesser consisted of twenty-three? From (Ibid. 35:24-25): \"And the congregation shall judge … and the congregation shall rescue.\" The congregation judges [i.e., Ten rule guilty], and the congregation rescues [i.e., Ten rule innocent], making twenty. [i.e., We derive from this that there must be twenty. If they are split, ten rule guilty, and ten, innocent.] And whence is it derived that a \"congregation\" is ten? From (Ibid. 14:27): \"How long for this evil congregation\" (of the spies), Yehoshua and Calev being excluded (from the twelve). And whence are the three additional derived? From (Exodus 23:2): \"Do not be after many for ill,\" I understand that I should be with them for good. Why, then, need I be told (Ibid.): \"After many to incline\"? (To be taught:) Not as your inclining for good (acquittal) is your inclining for ill (conviction). Your inclining for good is with (a majority of) one; your inclining for ill requires (a majority of) two (beyond the minimum ten). And since we cannot have a split beth-din, we add another one, making twenty-three. [The verse is understood thus: \"Do not be after many for ill,\" to convict by a majority of one over those ruling for acquittal; but \"after many to incline\" — with two, even for ill, when there are two more for conviction than for acquittal. Therefore, perforce, twenty-three are required. For there cannot be fewer than ten ruling for acquittal — viz.: \"And the congregation shall rescue,\" so that conviction cannot obtain with fewer than twelve. (\"and since we cannot have a split beth-din\":) Beth-din cannot be even-numbered; for if (it were, and) they were split (in their decision), we would have half against half, so that \"Your inclining for good is with one\" could not obtain. Therefore, an additional judge is added, making twenty-three.] And how many must there be in a city so that it qualify for a sanhedrin (of twenty-three)? One hundred and twenty. [The Gemara explains: Twenty-three, the small sanhedrin; three rows of twenty-three each sitting before them, from which to add to the judges if this becomes necessary (see 4:4); ten \"idlers\" (i.e., ten who are idle from all work and sit constantly in the house of study; two scribes to record the words of those who rule for acquittal and those who rule for conviction; two chazanim, sextons of beth-din, to administer stripes where prescribed and to summon the litigants; two litigants; two witnesses; two who declare them zomemin (\"scheming\"); two who declare the zomemin, zomemin; two (charity)collectors and a third to distribute the charity (charity being collected by two and being distributed by three); a blood-letter, a scribe; and a teacher of young children — making one hundred and twenty.] R. Nechemiah says: Two hundred and thirty, corresponding to \"officers of tens\" [i.e., twenty-three tens — so that each judge be an officer of ten, less than that not being regarded as \"authority.\" The halachah is not in accordance with R. Nechemiah.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tA high-priest judges and he is judged; he testifies and he is testified for; he administers chalitzah and his wife receives chalitzah. His wife is taken in yibum, but he does not perform yibum, for a widow is forbidden to him. If one of his kin died, he does not follow the litter, [lest he come to touch it in his preoccupation, and it is written (Leviticus 21:11): \"And to any dead body he shall not come.\"] But they (the litter bearers) are concealed and he is revealed; they are revealed and he is concealed. [When the litter bearers are \"concealed\" from the alleyway that they left, he is \"revealed,\" and enters it. But so long as they are \"revealed\" in the alleyway, he is \"concealed,\" from it, not entering it.] And he goes out with them until the entrance of the city. [For there are alleyways in the city in which he can conceal himself, but outside the city there is no (distinguishing) sign (of his separation from the procession)]. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: He does not go out of the sanctuary, viz. (Leviticus 21:12): \"And from the sanctuary he shall not go out.\" [R. Yehudah expounds: \"And from the sanctuary (mikdash), he shall not go out\" — at all. R. Meir expounds: \"And from his sanctity (kedushatho), he shall not go out,\" i.e., He should take care to avoid contact (with the body). And within the city, where there are alleyways, there is a distinguishing) sign, so that he takes care. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.] And when he consoles others, (when) it is the custom of all the people to pass by one after the other [(For all agree that he may follow the litter of one who is not his kin; for not being preoccupied, he will take care to avoid contact with the litter. And when they return from burial and stand in a file to console the mourners, who stand in their halts, and each one says: \"Be consoled by Heaven\")], the memunah (the \"appointed one\") [the adjutant high-priest, who is appointed to substitute for the high-priest if he becomes unfit on Yom Kippur] positions him in the middle between himself and the people. [For the memunah walks to the right of the high-priest, and all the people to his left, so that the high-priest is found to be in the middle.] And when he is consoled by others, all the people say to him: \"We are your atonement\" [i.e., You will receive atonement through us, and we are in your place for all that should come upon you], and he says to them: \"Be blessed by Heaven!\" And when they give him the mourner's meal, [for a mourner is forbidden to eat the first meal of his own food, and his kin and friends provide it for him], everyone sits on the ground [constricting themselves, and mourning for his suffering], and he sits [in (regard for his) dignity] on a bench.",
+ "\tA king does not judge and he is not judged. [This, only with the kings of Yisrael, who do not defer to the sages; but kings from the Davidic line judge and are judged, viz. (Jeremiah 21:12): \"House of David, thus says the L rd: 'Ply justice in the morning.'\"]. He does not testify and he is not testified for. He does not administer chalitzah and his wife does not receive chalitzah. He does not perform yibum and his wife is not taken in yibum. R. Yehudah says: \"If he wishes to perform chalitzah or yibum, let him be remembered for the good!\" They said to him: He is not heeded, [for a king may not \"waive\" his honor, and it is demeaning for him to perform chalitzah and have her spit in his face; and if chalitzah does not obtain with a woman, neither does yibum.] And his widow is not wedded. R. Yehudah says: A king may marry a king's widow. For thus do we find with David, who married Saul's widow, viz. (II Samuel 12:8): \"And I gave you (David) the house of your master (Saul), and the wives of your master in your bosom.\" [The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah in this.]",
+ "\tIf one of his kin dies, he does not leave the portal of his palace, [it being demeaning for a king to show a mournful countenance to the people]. R. Yehudah says: If he wishes to follow the litter, he may do so, viz. (II Samuel 3:31): \"And King David walked behind the litter.\" They countered: He did so only to appease the people, [so that they recognize that David had not counseled Yoav to kill Avner.] And when they give him the mourner's meal, everyone sits on the ground, and he sits on the bed.",
+ "\tAnd he takes out (the army) to a \"permitted war\" [a war with peoples other than Amalek, and with (nations other than) the seven nations], by authorization of a beth-din of seventy-one. And he breaches [the fence of others] to make way for himself [to go to his vineyard or his field], and he may not be held back (from doing so). The path of the king has no limits. All of the people take of the spoil and place it before him, and he takes the prime portion. [He chooses first and takes half of all the spoil.] He may not take more than eighteen wives. [For David had six wives, and the prophet (Nathan) said to him (II Samuel 12:8): \"And if these (six wives) were too few for you, I could have added to you as these and as these\": \"as these\" — six; \"and as these\" — six, making a total of eighteen.] R. Yehudah says: He may take more [than eighteen], so long as they do not turn his heart astray. R. Shimon says: He may not marry even one who turns his heart astray.] If so, why is it written (Deuteronomy 17\"7): \"And he shall not multiply for himself wives\"? Even such as Avigayil. [There are three different views on the matter: The first tanna holds that he may marry eighteen, even if they are immodest, and not more than eighteen, even if they are modest, this being the Scriptural decree. R. Yehudah holds that he may marry eighteen, even if they are immodest, but not more than eighteen of such; and he may marry as many modest, virtuous ones as he likes. He differs with the fist tanna on one count. R. Shimon holds that he may not marry even one immodest one, and not more than eighteen modest, virtuous ones. He differs from the first tanna on one count, and from R. Yehudah on both counts. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna.] (Ibid. 16): \"He shall not multiply for himself horses,\" but (may take) only as many as he needs for his chariot. [It is only \"idle\" horses (that he may not multiply), to vaunt and aggrandize himself with an abundance of horses; but for his chariot and for his horsemen to war against his foes, it is permitted.] (Ibid. 17): \"And silver and gold he shall not multiply for himself overmuch,\" but only as much as is required for aspania [the wages of those troops who go in and out with him the entire year.] And he writes a Torah scroll for himself, [aside from the Torah scroll that every Jewish man must have, and which he keeps in his treasury. The Torah scroll that he writes for himself when he is king goes in and out with him constantly.] When he goes out to war, he takes it with him. When he comes back, it comes back with him. When he sits in judgment, it is with him. When he sits down (to eat), it is beside him, viz. (Ibid. 19): \"And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life.\"",
+ "\tIt is not permitted to ride on his horse, to sit on his throne, to make use of his sceptre, or to see him when his hair is being cut, when he is naked, or when he is in the bathhouse, it being written (Deuteronomy 17:15): \"Place shall you place over yourself a king\" — his awe must be upon you."
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tMonetary litigations (are presided over) by three (judges). One [of the litigants] selects for himself one [judge], and one selects for himself another, and the two [litigants together] select for themselves another, [a third judge. In this way, a true judgment is secured. For the litigants accept the verdict, saying: \"They judged us fairly.\" For the one found liable says: \"I myself selected one judge, and if he could have found something in my favor, he would have.\" And the third judge himself is inclined to find something in favor of both, both having selected him.] These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: The two judges select a third, [without the knowledge of the litigants, so that the third judge not be inclined to either one of them. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] Each (of the litigants) may disqualify the judge of the other. [He may say to him: \"I do not wish the case to be tried by the beth-din that you chose.\"] These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: When is this so? When he brings proof against them [(the judges that the other selected)] that they are kin or (otherwise) unfit. But if they were kasher or expert, he cannot disqualify them. [This is the intent: But if they were kasher, i.e., neither kin nor (otherwise) unfit, even if they were \"corner-sitters,\" they are regarded as experts, and he cannot disqualify them. The halachah: If the litigants accept someone to judge their case (whether one or many), and he rendered a decision, his ruling stands and they cannot controvert it, even if he is not \"an expert for the many.\" And if it were found that he erred — If he erred in a ruling of the Mishnah or in something adduced in the Gemara, the case is returned and judged as per the halachah. And if it cannot be returned (as when the one who was awarded money erroneously, went abroad), the judge is exempt from payment; for even though he contributed to the (financial) loss, he did not do so intentionally. And if he erred in his judgment, in something where tannaim, amoraim, or geonim differ, the ruling being in accordance with one, and this judge ruling in accordance with that gaon whose ruling is not the accepted one — If he had not taken (money from one) and placed (it) into the hand (of the other), the case is returned. And if it cannot be returned, he pays from his pocket. And if had \"taken and placed in hand,\" what is done is done, and he pays from his pocket. And a judge who had not been accepted by the litigants, but who arose (to judge) of himself, or one who had been appointed by the king or by some of the elders of the congregation — If he is not \"an expert for the many,\" even if he was granted permission by the Exilarch, his ruling is no ruling, whether or not he erred, and he is not in the class of the judges, but in that of the \"despots.\" And either of the litigants, if he wishes, may controvert his ruling and return the case to beth-din. And if he erred, and did not \"take and place in hand,\" the case is returned. And if it cannot be returned, he pays from his pocket, as per the halachah for all who contribute to (monetary) loss. And if he \"took and placed in hand,\" he pays from his pocket and he then takes (the money back) from the litigant he awarded it to contrary to the halachah. And \"an expert to the many\" who was accepted by the litigants or who was granted permission by the Exilarch — Even if he was accepted by the litigants; or if he were granted permission by the Exilarch, even if the litigants did not accept him — since he is an expert, if he erred, whether in a ruling of the Mishnah or in his judgment, and the case cannot be returned, he need not pay. And an expert who was granted permission by the Exilarch may compel the litigants to try their case before him, whether they wish to or not, both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it. And if one were granted permission by the Nassi in Eretz Yisrael, he can compel the litigants only in Eretz Yisrael. An \"expert\" is one who is versed in the written and the oral law and who can reason, draw comparisons, and understand one thing from another. And when he is recognized and acknowledged by the men of his generation, he is called \"an expert to the many,\" and he may judge alone, even without having been granted permission by the Exilarch.] Each (of the litigants) may disqualify the witnesses of the other. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: When (may he do so)? When he brings proof against them that they are kin or (otherwise) unfit. But if they were kasher, he cannot disqualify them. [The Gemara construes the difference between R. Meir and the sages as obtaining in an instance where a litigant says: \"I have two pairs of witnesses in this case,\" and he brought the first pair, and the other litigant and one other (witness) arose and said: \"They are unfit.\" R. Meir says that they may do so, not being considered \"interested witnesses,\" the first litigant maintaining that he has another pair. And if he seeks (that pair) and cannot find them, it is his loss. And the rabbis hold that even though he says at first that he has two pairs of witnesses, he may retract and say: \"I have only these,\" so that the ones who come to disqualify them are considered \"interested witnesses\" and their testimony is invalid. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
+ "\tIf one said: \"I trust my father\" [to be a judge, even though the Torah disqualifies him from judging me, both for acquittal or for liability, viz. (Deuteronomy 24:16): \"Fathers shall not be put to death by (cause of) sons\"], \"I trust your father,\" \"I trust the three cattle herders\" [to judge (for, as witnesses, they are kasher)] — R. Meir says: He can retract, [even after the ruling, after the judge accepted the testimony and said: \"So and so, you are acquitted.\"] The sages say: He cannot retract. [The rabbis differ with R. Meir only (in an instance) where the verdict has been pronounced; but before it has been pronounced, the sages concur with R. Meir that he can retract. And also if they (the judges) \"acquired from his hand\" (by symbolic act) that he will accept the testimony or the judging of a certain man, then even before the verdict he cannot retract, for \"nothing preempts acquisition (kinyan).\" And this is the halachah.] If one owed his neighbor an oath, and he (the latter) said to him: \"Swear to me by 'the life of your head'\" [and I will give you what you claim (and, it goes without saying, \"I shall waive my claim against you\"), and he swore or they \"acquired from his hand\" (that he would swear) although he had not yet done so, he cannot retract (as per the sages. This is the halachah.)] R. Meir says: He can retract. The sages say: He cannot retract.",
+ "\tThese are the ones who are invalidated [to judge and to testify]: One who games with kuvia (dice) (see Rosh Hashanah 1:8). [He is unfit to testify for he does not engage in \"the habitation of the world.\" And one is forbidden to engage in his world in anything except Torah and lovingkindness, or in trade, craft, or work conducing to the habitation of the world.], one who lends on interest [Both the borrower and the lender are invalidated, it being ruled that both are in violation of a negative commandment], those who race pigeons [Some understand this as a form of gambling, viz.: \"If your pigeon comes before my pigeon, I will give you, etc.\"; and some understand it as training pigeons to \"abduct\" other pigeons to their dove-cote, this being \"theft by reason of (i.e., by violation of) 'the ways of peace,'\" and not absolute theft], and those who trade in (produce of) shevi'ith (the sabbatical year), [of which it is written (Leviticus 25:6): \"And the resting of the land shall be for you to eat\" — and not for trade.] R. Shimon said: In the beginning they called them \"the gatherers of shevi'ith\" [The Gemara interprets R. Shimon thus: In the beginning they called them \"the gatherers of shevi'ith.\" That is, those who gathered the fruits of shevi'ith for themselves were unfit to testify, just as those who traded in the fruits of shevi'ith.] With the increase of the \"extorters\" [those who requisitioned the king's portion, e.g., so many and so many korin of grain each year, so that they had to gather the produce of shevi'ith to fill the king's quota], they reverted to calling them \"traders in shevi'ith\" [i.e., they reverted to saying that \"the traders\" in the fruits of shevi'ith alone were unfit to testify, but those who gathered the produce of shevi'ith to give it to the king are fit to testify, since they do not gather it to store it for themselves. As to the halachah: Whoever commits a transgression punishable by judicial death penalty, kareth (cutting-off) or stripes, is unfit to testify, for one who has incurred the death penalty is called \"an evildoer,\" viz. (Numbers 35:31): \"...who is an evildoer (condemned) to die,\" as is one who has incurred stripes, viz. (Deuteronomy 25:2): \"And it shall be, if liable to stripes is the evildoer,\" and it is written (Exodus 23:1): \"Do not place your hand with an evildoer to be a false witness,\" which is expounded: \"Do not make an evildoer a witness.\" And if he receives stripes, he reverts to his fitness, viz. (Deuteronomy 25:3): \"And your brother (in receiving stripes) shall be demeaned before your eyes\" — Once he has been smitten, he is as your brother. And if he took money unlawfully, even though he incurs neither the death penalty nor stripes, he is unfit to testify, e.g., a thief, a robber, and a lender on interest. And if he took money in violation of a rabbinic ordinance, he is unfit to testify by rabbinic ordinance, e.g., pigeon racers, and \"forcers,\" who give money and take things that the owners do not wish to sell, charity collectors and tax collectors who take for themselves, and those who accept charity from gentiles in public — these and their like are unfit to testify by rabbinic ordinance. And their testimony is not invalid until they are exposed and publicized; but those who are unfit to testify by Torah law need not be thus exposed. And all who are unfit to testify, whether by Torah law or by rabbinic ordinance, if it can be ascertained that they have fully repented, and returned the money that they took unlawfully, and made a \"fence\" for themselves in the matter in which they sinned, so as not to repeat it, they return to their (state of) fitness. And those who game with kuvia, even though they are not guilty of theft even by rabbinic ordinance, they are unfit to testify, for they do not engage in \"the habitation of the world\" and have no fear of Heaven. And (they are thus unfit) only when they have no occupation but that, as per R. Yehudah (below). And this is the halachah. And when are they considered to have repented? When they break their dice and take it upon themselves not to game even gratis.] R. Yehudah said: When (are they unfit to testify)? When they have no occupation but that. But if they have an additional occupation, they are fit.",
+ "\tAnd these are the (invalidated) kin (vis-à-vis judging and testifying): his father, his brother, his father's brother, his mother's brother, his sister's husband, [the husband being like his wife], his mother's sister's husband, his mother's husband, his father-in-law, his brother-in-law [i.e., the husband of his wife's sister] — they, their sons, and their sons-in-law. [Only sons and daughters that his brother-in-law has from his wife's sister. But if he has sons from another wife, or sons-in-law married to daughters from another wife, they are not considered kin.] And his stepson alone [is considered kin, but not his stepson's son or his stepson's son-in-law. And he may not testify for his stepson's wife, for a woman is like her husband. And brothers, one vis-à-vis the other, whether from the father or from the mother, are first (of kin) in (i.e., vis-à-vis) first. Their sons, vis-à-vis each other are second in second. And the sons of their sons, vis-à-vis each other, are third in third. Third in first is always kasher, and it goes without saying, third in second. But second in second, and, it goes without saying, second in first, are both pasul (unfit). And just as you reckon for males, so you reckon for females. And every woman that you are pasul to, you are pasul to her husband. And every man that you are pasul to, you are pasul to his wife.] R. Yossi said: This is the Mishnah of R. Akiva, but an earlier Mishnah (reckons as invalidated kin) his uncle and his uncle's son. [The halachah is not in accordance with the earlier Mishnah.] And (also pasul are) all who are fit to inherit him [This is the conclusion of the Mishnah of R. Akiva and not of the earlier Mishnah. (\"all who are fit to inherit him:\") i.e., the father's kin. But the mother's kin, such as \"his mother's brother\" above, are kasher (to testify) for him. For his mother's brother is not fit to inherit him. He, however, is fit to inherit his mother's brother, for which reason he is pasul to testify for him.] and all who are kin to him at that time (the time of the testimony). If he were (once) kin [e.g., his son-in-law, who is fit to inherit him by reason of his (the son-in-law's) wife], and he became removed, [his wife having died before he witnessed this (matter of potential) testimony], he is kasher. R. Yehudah says: Even if his daughter died, but he had children from her, he is (considered) kin. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Akiva.]",
+ "\tThe lover and the hater (are invalidated). Lover — his groomsman. [He is pasul for him all the days of the wedding.] Hater — whoever does not speak with him for three days out of hatred. They said to him: Israel is not suspect of this [to testify falsely out of hatred or love. And this is the halachah. It is only in respect to testifying that the rabbis differ. But in respect to judging they agree that he is pasul. For if he loves him, he will not find anything in his disfavor; and if he hates him, he will not try to find anything in his favor.]",
+ "\tHow are the witnesses examined (to ascertain that they are telling the truth)? They would bring them in and intimidate them. [They would apprise them that the hirers of false witnesses themselves scorn them and call them wicked, viz., in respect to Navoth (I Kings 21:10): \"And seat two worthless people opposite him, and let them testify (falsely),\" the king's counselors themselves, who counseled hiring them, calling them \"worthless.\"] And they would take everyone out and leave the senior (witness) there, and they would say to him: \"How do you know that this one owed that one?\" If he said: \"He (the borrower) told me that he owes him,\" \"That man told me that he owes him,\" he has said nothing. [for people are wont to say that they owe in order not to be thought rich.] (He is not accepted as a witness) until he says: \"Before us he admitted to him that he owes him two hundred zuz.\" [i.e., Both of them were before us and his intent was to acknowledge the debt and have them witness the acknowledgement.] Then the second one is brought in and he is examined. If their stories jibe, they (beth-din) deliberate. If two say \"Not liable,\" and one says \"Liable,\" he (the borrower) is not liable. If two say \"Liable,\" and one \"Not liable,\" he is liable. If one says \"Not liable,\" and one says \"Liable\" — and even if two say \"Not liable\" or two say \"Liable,\" and one says \"I do not know\" — they add judges. [And even though if he had differed with the others, he, being in the minority, would be overruled, when he says \"I do not know,\" it is as if he had not sat in judgment, so it is as if the judgment were with two, and we require three.]",
+ "\tWhen they (beth-din) finished the matter, they would bring them [the litigants] in. [For after hearing their claims, they would take them out so that they (beth-din) could deliberate and the litigants not hear who ruled liable and who not liable.] The senior judge would say: \"So and so, you are not liable; so and so, you are liable.\" And whence is it derived that when one of the judges goes out, he should not say: \"I found you not liable, but my colleagues found you liable. What can I do? They are the majority.\" From (Leviticus 19:16): \"Do not go as a tale-bearer among your people,\" and (Proverbs 11:13): \"He who reveals a secret is a tale-bearer.\"",
+ "\tWhenever he brings proof (in his favor), he can overturn the verdict. If they said to him: \"Whatever proofs you have, bring them within thirty days\" — If he found (proof) within thirty days, he overturns it; if not, not. R. Shimon b. Gamliel asked: \"What is one to do if he did not find it within thirty days but did find it afterwards!\" If they (beth-din) said to him: \"Bring witnesses,\" and he said: \"I have no witnesses\"; if they said: \"Bring proof\" [a writ of credit], and he said: \"I have no proof,\" and afterwards he brought proof or found witnesses, it is of no account. [For he said \"I do not have,\" and we suspect him of forgery or of having hired false witnesses.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel said: \"What is one to do if he did not know that he had witnesses and he found witnesses, or if he did not know that he had proof and he found proof!\" [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.] If they said to him: \"Bring witnesses,\" and he said: \"I have no witnesses\"; \"Bring proof,\" and he said: \"I have no proof,\" and then, seeing that he would lose the case, said: \"You and you come here and testify for me,\" or he produced proof from his afundah [(his belt; others say: a garment worn close to the skin)], it is of no account. [In this, even R. Shimon b. Gamliel concurs. For since he knew of them and denied it, he is certainly a liar. But if one says: I have witnesses or proof across the seas, he is not heeded to delay judgment until he sends abroad; but the ruling is given according to the evidence available at that time, and when he brings witnesses or proof, the ruling is overturned and the case is heard again as per the witnesses or proof that he brought.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tBoth monetary litigations and capital cases require thorough cross-examination (of the witnesses), it being written (Leviticus 24:22): \"One judgment shall there be for you.\" [And, in respect to capital cases it is written (Deuteronomy 13:15): \"And you shall inquire and you shall search out.\" This is the law of the Torah. But the sages prescribed that the cross-examination not be drawn out in monetary litigations so that the door not be closed to loans (unless beth-din sense deceit). \"Cross-examination\" (drishah uchakirah) is on the issue itself, e.g., How much was lent? When was it lent? How was it lent? Where was it lent? And there is another line of questioning called \"examination\" (bedikah) not on the issue itself, e.g., What was he wearing? Were his clothes black or white? Was he standing or sitting when he lent him?] What is the difference between monetary litigations and capital cases. Monetary litigations (are judged) by three; capital cases, by twenty-three. [Deliberations in] monetary cases are opened either for non-liability or for liability. Capital cases are opened for acquittal and not for indictment. Monetary judgments are decided by (a majority of) one, both for non-liability or for liability. Capital cases are decided by one for acquittal, and by two, for liability. [Rulings found to be mistaken in] monetary cases are overturned both for non-liability and for liability. Capital cases are overturned for acquittal, but not for indictment. (In) monetary litigations all can register a plea for non-liability or for liability. (In) capital cases, all can register a plea for acquittal, but not for indictment. [If one of the disciples says: \"I have something to say for indictment,\" he is not heeded.] (In) monetary litigations the one (i.e., the judge) who argues for liability can (retract and) argue for non-liability, and the one who argues for non-liability can argue for liability. (In) capital cases, the one who argues for indictment can argue for acquittal, but the one who argues for acquittal cannot retract and argue for indictment. Monetary litigations are adjudicated in the daytime and concluded (even) at night. [viz. (Exodus 18:22): \"And they shall judge the people at every time,\" and (Deuteronomy 21:16): \"And it shall be on the day he causes his sons to inherit!\" How so? The day for the beginning of the judgment; the night for its conclusion.] Capital cases are adjudicated in the daytime and concluded in the daytime, [it being written (Numbers 25:4): \"And hang them up for the L rd against the sun.\"] Monetary cases are concluded on the day (of their adjudication) both for non-liability and for liability. Capital cases are concluded on the day (of their adjudication) for acquittal, and on the day afterwards for indictment, [viz. (Isaiah 1:21): \"She (Jerusalem) that was full of justice, where righteousness would lie over (i.e., where the judges would wait until the next day, hoping to find the defendant righteous) — now (they are) murderers!\" (i.e., they indict on the day of adjudication.)] Therefore, they (capital cases) are not adjudicated on the eve of a Sabbath or of a festival. [ For its conclusion would then be on the Sabbath. And it (the conclusion) cannot be left until after the Sabbath because of \"affliction (i.e., delay) of judgment.\" And to judge (i.e., to execute) him on the Sabbath is also not possible, for the four judicial death penalties do not override the Sabbath, it being written (Exodus 35:3): \"You shall not light a fire in all of your dwellings on the day of the Sabbath\" — to teach that those liable to burning are not burned on the Sabbath. The same applies to the other judicial death penalties.]",
+ "\tCases of (ritual) uncleanliness and cleanliness begin from the senior (judge). Capital cases begin from the side [i.e., from those lesser in wisdom, who sat at the side, it being written (Exodus 23:2): \"Do not answer upon riv (written \"rav\") to deviate.\" That is, do not answer after the elect one in beth-din, to deviate from his words. For this reason, his words are heard only at the end.] All are kasher to adjudicate monetary litigations, [even a proselyte, if his mother were a Jewess. And a mamzer, too, is kasher to adjudicate monetary litigations.] But not all are kasher to adjudicate capital cases, but only Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites who can marry into the priesthood, [it being written (Exodus 18:22): \"And let them lighten your burden and bear with you (Moses)\" — they must be like you. Just as Moses our teacher was \"pedigreed,\" so beth-din must be pedigreed.]",
+ "\tSanhedrin sat in a semi-circle, so that they could see each other, [it being written (Songs of Songs 7:3): \"Your navel is like the basin of the moon (sahar)\": \"Your navel is like the basin (agan)\" — this is Sanhedrin, which sits in the center of the world (the Temple site) and defends (maginah - similar to \"agan\") the entire world. And it is like the moon in that it sits in a circle like a half moon. (The Targum of moon is \"sihara.\") And they do not sit in a full circle because the litigants and the witnesses must come in and speak before all of them.] And two court scribes stood before them, one on the right; the other on the left, and they wrote down the words of the acquitters and the words of the indicters. R. Yehudah says: (There were) three. One wrote the words of the acquitters; another, the words of the indicters; and a third, the words of the acquitters and the words of the indicters, [so that there be two witnesses for the acquitters and two for the indicters. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
+ "\tAnd three rows of Torah scholars sat before them. [There were twenty-three in each row, lest the judges be split, the majority (i.e., a majority of one) indicting, and a minority acquitting, and \"inclination for ill\" is not with one, viz. (Exodus 23:2): \"Do not be after many for ill,\" so that two must be added, until seventy-one, that number never being exceeded. Therefore, forty-eight (Torah scholars) must be added for the complement of seventy-one. And because it is not respectful to make a row of Torah scholars more numerous than the judges, three rows are made.] And each of them knew his place. [For they were seated in order of their wisdom, so that each one had to know his place.] If they had to ordain (one as a judge) [as when one of the judges died], they would do so from the first (row). One from the second (row) would come to the first, and one from the third would come to the second. And they would pick another one from the congregation and seat him in the third (row). He would not sit in the place of the first, but in the place fit for him, [at the end of the third row. For the least of the scholars in the rows was greater than the greatest of the congregation.]",
+ "\tHow are the witnesses intimidated [not to testify falsely] in capital cases? They would bring them in and intimidate them, viz.: Can it be that you are testifying (illegally) by conjecture or through hearsay, \"witness from witness\" (and not from direct observation), or (even) from a reliable person? Can it be that you do not know that we are going to cross-examine you thoroughly? Know that capital cases are not like monetary litigations. In monetary litigations, [where one testifies falsely to make another financially liable], he makes financial restitution and he is forgiven; but in capital cases, his (victim's) blood and the blood of his (unborn) descendants are on his head until the end of time. For thus do we find with Cain, who killed his brother, viz. (Genesis 4:10): \"The voice of your brother's bloods cries out to Me\": It is not written \"your brother's blood,\" but \"your brother's bloods\" — his blood and the blood of his children. (Another interpretation: \"your brother's bloods\" — his blood was bespattered on trees and stones). It is for this reason that man was created singly [to show that the entire world proceeded from one man] — in order to teach that if one causes a single Jewish soul to go lost, Scripture accounts it to him as if had caused an entire world to go lost; and if one sustains a single Jewish soul, Scripture accounts it to him as if he had sustained an entire world. And (man was created singly) for the fostering of peace, that one not say to his neighbor: \"My father (i.e., my original ancestor) was greater than yours,\" and that the heretics not say: \"There are many deities in heaven,\" [each creating man in its own image], and to declare the greatness of the Holy One Blessed be He; for man mints many coins from one die, and they are all the same, but the King of kings, the Holy One Blessed be He, mints every man from the die of the first man, and none of them is the same as his neighbor — for which reason every man must say: \"For my sake was the world created!\" And lest you (the witnesses) say: \"What need have we of this trouble!\" [to enter into this worry (by testifying) even truthfully] — Is it not already written (Leviticus 5:1): \"And he is a witness, or saw, or knew — if he does not tell, then he shall bear his sin!\" [so that you must testify to what you have seen.] And lest you say: \"Why have this one's (the defendant's) blood on our head?\" [i.e., It is better to stand in (violation of) \"if he does not tell\"] — it is already written (Proverbs 11:10): \"In the destruction of the wicked is joy,\" [so that if he is wicked, there is no sin (in testifying against him) at all.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tThey would examine them with seven inquiries. [After they intimidated them, they examined them with seven inquiries corresponding to seven expressions in Scripture relating to those liable to judicial death penalty, viz. (Deuteronomy 13:15): \"And you shall inquire, and you shall search out, and you shall ask well\" (three inquiries). \"And you shall ask\" (by itself, without \"well\") is not counted. And elsewhere it is written (Ibid. 17:4): \"And it be told to you, and you hear, and you search it out well\" (another two, making five). And elsewhere (Ibid. 19:18): \"And the judges shall search out well\" (another two, making seven)]: Which seven year period [of the Jubilee]? Which year [of that seven year period]? Which month? On which date of the month? Which day [of the week]? Which hour [of the day?] In which place? [For all of these seven inquiries can lead to hazamah (having them declared \"scheming witnesses\"), and it may be that there are no witnesses who can do so for (the period of) the entire day, but who may be able to do so for that hour.] R. Yossi says: [Only three inquiries are needed:] Which day? Which hour\" In which place? [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi. But even if the witnesses said: \"They killed yesterday,\" they are examined with seven inquiries in order to \"unnerve\" them into admission if their testimony is unfounded.] (In murder cases they are asked:) Do you recognize him [the victim? Perhaps he is a gentile. This is not one of the inquiries towards hazamah, but one of the general questions intended to catch the witnesses in a mutual contradiction, in which instance he (the accused) and they (the witnesses) are exempt (form punishment)]. (If they testify) that one served idolatry, (they are asked:) Which (idolatry) did he serve? [e.g., Pe'or or Mercurius], and: How did he serve it? [e.g., by sacrificing or by bowing].",
+ "\tWhoever multiplies examinations (of the witnesses) is to be praised. Once, Ben Zakkai examined (someone) on the peduncles of figs. [(\"Ben Zakkai\":) R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. He was a disciple judging before his master at that time, for which reason he was called \"Ben Zakkai.\" (\"on the peduncles of fruits\":) They (the witnesses) testified that he was killed under a fig tree, and Ben Zakkai \"examined\": \"Were the peduncles of the figs thin or thick?\"] What is the difference between \"inquiries\" (chakiroth) and \"examinations\" (bedikoth)? With chakiroth, if one (of the witnesses) says: \"I do not know,\" their testimony is invalidated. [For they are no longer subject to hazamah through that chakirah. And so long as it is impossible to satisfy hazamah with one of the witnesses, the entire testimony is invalidated, even if there are a hundred witnesses; for the witnesses cannot be rendered zomemin until all of them are so rendered.] With bedikoth, if one says: \"I do not know,\" and even if two of them say: \"We do not know,\" the testimony stands. [Even if all say: \"We do not know,\" the mitzvah of hazamah obtains. For hazamah is contingent only upon chakirah, (leaving the witnesses open) to the claim: \"You were with us at that time in a different place.\"] Both with chakiroth and with bedikoth, if they (the witnesses) contradict each other, their testimony is invalidated. [In all instances of \"their testimony is invalidated\" in the Gemara, he (the one testified against) and they (the witnesses) are exempt (from liability)].",
+ "\tIf one (witness) says: (The event took place) \"on the second day of the month,\" and the other says: \"on the third day of the month,\" their testimony stands. For (we presume that) this one [the one who said \"on the second day\"] knows of the intercalation of the month [i.e., He knows that the month that passed was full and that the first day of the new) month, the thirtieth day, appertained to the month that passed. This, only until half of the month (has passed). But from half of the month on, their testimony is invalidated. For it is presumed that by the time half a month has passed, everyone knows when beth-din sanctified the New Moon.], and (we presume that) the other (the one who said \"on the third day\") does not know of the intercalation of the month. If one says: \"on the third,\" and the other says: \"on the fifth,\" their testimony is invalidated. If one says: \"in the second hour,\" and the other says: \"in the third,\" their testimony stands. If one says: \"in the third,\" and the other says: \"in the fifth,\" their testimony is invalidated. R. Yehudah says: It stands, [for one might err by this amount.] If one says: \"in the fifth,\" and the other says: \"in the seventh,\" their testimony is invalidated. For in the fifth, the sun is in the east, and in the seventh, the sun is in the west. [From the place of the rising of the sun until the middle of the sky is called \"the east,\" and from the middle of the sky until the place of the setting of the sun is called \"the west.\"]",
+ "\tAnd then the second one is brought in and he is examined. If their words coincide, [so that they must now deliberate on the matter] they (beth-din) open with \"merit.\" [\"If you did not transgress, do not fear.\"] If one of the witnesses says: \"I have something to say in his favor,\" or one of the disciples: \"I have something to say against him,\" he is silenced. [(\"I have something to say in his favor\":) even in his favor, and, it goes without saying that he is silenced if he (a witness) says: \"I have something to say against him,\" viz. (Numbers 35:30): \"And one witness shall not testify\" — both for acquittal or for conviction. (\"one of the disciples\":) sitting before the judges. (If he says:) \"I have something to say against him,\" he is silenced, it being written (Ibid.): \"One shall not testify in a man to kill him\" — \"to kill him he does not testify,\" but he does testify in his favor.] If one of the disciples said: \"I have something to say in his favor, he is brought up (to the judges) and placed among them, and he does not descend thence the entire day, [even if there is no substance to his words; but if there is substance to his words, he never descends thence.] If there is substance to his words, he is heeded. And even if he [the accused] says: \"I have something to say in my favor,\" he is heeded, so long as there be substance to his words.",
+ "\tIf they found in his favor, they acquitted him. And if not, they moved his judgment to the next day [so as not to judge at night]. They would pair off and minimize eating, and they would not drink wine all the day, and they would deliberate all the night. The next day, they would arise early and come to beth-din. The acquitter says: \"I acquitted (yesterday), and my acquittal stands.\" The indicter says: \"I indicted (yesterday), and my indictment stands.\" The indicter may (change his mind and) acquit; but the acquitter may not retract and indict. If they (the judges) erred in something, the two judicial scribes remind them (of what they said the preceding day). If they find in his favor, they acquit him. If not, they stand for a count. If twelve acquit and twelve indict, he is acquitted. If twelve indict and eleven acquit, [\"inclining for ill\" not obtaining with one, they add judges]; and even if eleven acquit and eleven indict, and one says: \"I do not know\"; and even if twenty-two acquit or indict, and one says: \"I do not know,\" they add judges. [For the one who says \"I do not know\" is accounted as not being there, and capital cases, whether for acquittal or for indictment, are not adjudicated with fewer than twenty-three.] Until what number are additional twos added [if the two (most recently) added \"split,\" one here (for acquittal); the other there (for indictment), so that there is still no inclining, neither for good by one, nor for evil by two]? Until seventy-one. If thirty-six acquit and thirty-five indict, he is acquitted. If thirty-six indict and thirty-five acquit, they debate the matter until one of the indicters accepts the words of the acquitters [so that there is inclining for good by one. The same applies if one of the acquitters accepts the words of the indicters. For the ruling is that at the time of the conclusion of the judgment even one who held for acquittal may reverse himself for indictment. As to its not being taught \"until one of the acquitters accepts the words of the indicters,\" the tanna \"pursues acquittal.\"]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tWhen the verdict was reached, he was taken out to be stoned. The stoning site was outside of beth-din [far from beth-din, so that when they were conducting him there something might be found in his defense and he be exonerated], viz. (Leviticus 24:14): \"Take the curser outside, etc.\" One man would stand at the entrance of beth-din with the scarves in his hand [to wave as a sign to return him], and another would ride on a horse (as) far from him as he could (still) see him. If someone says: \"I have something to say in his defense,\" the first waves the scarves and the rider runs and stops (the execution). And even if he says: \"I have something to say in my defense,\" he is returned, even four or five times, so long as there is substance in what he says. [And if there is no substance in what he says, he is returned only the first and second times, on the possibility that his fright had \"stopped up\" his defense and that he might regain his self-possession and formulate his claims. But he is not returned more than this. And he is provided with two Torah scholars to determine whether there is substance in his words, in which instance he is returned four or five times.] If they found something in his favor, he was acquitted. If not, he is taken out to be stoned. And a crier goes out before him, (proclaiming): \"This man is taken out to be stoned because he committed this and this transgression, and so and so are his witnesses\" [that he committed this and this transgression at this and this time at this and this place — this, to render them subject to hazamah.]",
+ "\tAt a distance of ten cubits from the stoning site he is told: \"Confess.\" [For when he is close to it, he might panic and not be able to confess.] For all who are to be put to death confess. For all who confess have a share in the world to come, viz., Achan, who was told by Joshua (Joshua 7:19): \"My son, confer, now, glory upon the L rd, the G d of Israel, and make confession to Him [(And even though one is not executed by his own confession, the execution of Achan was dictated by the circumstances.)] …And Achan answered Joshua and said: 'In truth, I have sinned to the L rd, the G d of Israel and as thus and as thus have I done.'\" [The Gemara explains that he misappropriated the spoils in the time of Moses.] And whence do we derive that his confession atoned for him? From (Ibid. 25): \"And Joshua said: 'How you have sullied us! May the L rd sully you on this day!'\" — you are sullied on this day, but not for the world to come. And if he does not know how to confess, he is told: \"Say: 'Let my death be an atonement for all of my sins.'\" R. Yehudah says: If he knows that he was falsely testified against, he says: \"Let my death be an atonement for all of my transgressions except this one.\" This was countered: If so, all men (sentenced to death) will say this in order to acquit themselves [in the eyes of their fellows and thus come to discredit the judges and the witnesses. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
+ "\tAt a distance of four cubits from the stoning site, they remove his clothing, [it being written (Leviticus 24:23): \"And they stoned him\" — without his garment.] A man is covered in front [i.e., a small section in front (his genitals)], and a woman (is covered) in front and in back. These are the words of R. Yehudah. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] And the sages say: A man is stoned naked (except for that one region), but a woman is not stoned naked, (i.e., she must be fully clothed)].",
+ "\tThe stoning site [from which he was thrown to the ground] was two (men's) heights. If he turned over on his heart, (facing the ground), he is turned over on his back, [for lying prone is more demeaning.] If he dies from it (i.e., from the fall), the requirement (of stoning) is satisfied; and if not, the second (witness) takes the stone and casts it at his heart. If he dies from that, the requirement is satisfied. If not, he is stoned by all of Israel, viz. (Deuteronomy 17:7): \"The hand of the witnesses shall be against him first to kill him, and the hand of all the people afterwards.\" All of those who are stoned are (afterwards) hung up. These are the words of R. Eliezer. And the sages say: Only the blasphemer [of the L rd] and the idolator are hung up, [the idolator also being a blasphemer, viz. (Numbers 15:30): \"And the soul who acts with a high hand … it is the L rd whom he blasphemes.\" And that section speaks of idolatry.] A man is hung up facing the people, and a woman facing the wood. These are the words of R. Eliezer. The sages say: A man is hung up and a woman is not hung up. R. Eliezer countered: \"Did not Shimon b. Shetach hang up women in Ashkelon?\" They answered: He hung up eighty women, and two are not judged [in one beth-din] in one day. [For it is not possible to seek a defense for each of them (in one day). So that the hanging up of those women must have been dictated by the circumstances, and cannot serve as a precedent. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.] How is he hung up (after he is executed)? A pole is sunk in the ground with a beam projecting from it, and his two hands are joined (and bound) together, and he is hung up [by his hands]. R. Yossi says: The beam is placed against the wall, and he is suspended upon it, as butchers do (with slaughtered animals). [It was not rooted in the ground, but one of its ends was on the ground, and the other inclined against the wall. The rationale of R. Yossi: The wood on which he was suspended was buried with him, and the Torah states (Deuteronomy 21:23): \"But bury shall you bury him\" — he who lacks only burying; to exclude that which lacks digging up, uprooting, and burying. And the (rationale of the) rabbis: Digging up is of no import. The Torah excluded only its being rooted from the beginning. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] And he is let down immediately. And if he is allowed to remain there overnight, he (the one who allows it) transgresses a negative commandment, viz. (Deuteronomy 21:23): \"You shall not leave his body overnight on a tree, but bury shall you bury it on that day; for killelath G d is suspended, etc.\" That is, why is this one suspended? Because he \"blessed\" (a euphemism for \"cursed\" - killel) the L rd, so that the name of Heaven is desecrated (by leaving him — a reminder of the curse — hanging there.)",
+ "\tR. Meir says: When a man suffers [punishment because of his transgression], what does it (the Shechinah) say, (as it were) [i.e., How does it utter plaint and grievance over him?] \"Kalani meroshi\" [\"My head is heavy upon me\"], Kalani mizro'i\" [\"My arm is heavy upon me\" (as one who is fatigued;) \"kalani\" = \"I am not 'light'\"] If the L rd is thus aggrieved over the blood of the wicked that is spilled, how much more so over the blood of the righteous! And not only this [i.e., not only one who leaves an executed man hanging overnight transgresses], but whoever leaves his dead one (unburied) overnight transgresses a negative commandment. If he left him overnight for his honor, to bring a casket or shrouds for him, he does not transgress. And they would not bury him (one executed by beth-din) in the crypts of his forefathers, [for an evildoer is not buried next to a righteous man], but there were two burial grounds allotted to beth-din, one for those killed by the sword or by strangulation, and the other, for those killed by stoning or burning. [For one who was liable to a very severe death is not buried next to one who was liable to a lesser one. It is a received law: two, and not four.]",
+ "\tWhen the flesh decays [and he has already received atonement through his death and debasement], the bones are gathered and buried in their place [in the ancestral crypts], and the kin (of the deceased) come and solicit the well-being of the judges and of the witnesses, viz.: \"We have nothing in our hearts against you, for you judged a righteous judgment.\" And they would not mourn them (publicly), [so that their debasement be an atonement for them. Others say: Because mourning (aveiluth) obtains when the grave is closed with the top-stone, and at that time they are not mourned, for their atonement is not complete until the flesh is decayed; and since mourning was pushed off, it remains so.] But they would lament them, for \"lamentation\" (aninuth) is in the heart alone."
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tFour death penalties were relegated to beth-din: stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation. [Stoning is more severe than burning, and both, than decapitation; and the three of them (are more severe) than strangulation. This is of significance where one is liable to two death penalties, the ruling being that he incurs the more severe.] R. Shimon says: Burning, stoning, strangulation, and decapitation. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.] This [(the foregoing)] is execution by stoning.",
+ "\tExecution by burning: They would steep him in refuse until his thighs [so that he not turn back and forth and the brand fall on his flesh.] They would place a hard cloth into a soft one and tie it around his throat, [the hard one to choke him; the soft one, to shield.] One would pull on one end; another, on the other, until he opened his mouth. Then he (another) would take the [leaden] brand and drop it into his mouth. It would descend to his innards and burn out (chomereth) his intestines, [as in (Eichah 2:11): \"My intestines have been burned out\" (chamarmaru). This is derived from the death of the sons of Aaron, viz. (Leviticus 10:6): \"And let your brothers, the entire house of Israel, bewail the burning which the L rd has burned,\" where their bodies were not burned, viz. (Ibid. 5): \"And they drew near and they carried them in their tunics.\" Here, too, the mitzvah of burning is satisfied even though their innards alone are burned. And this (form of burning) is preferred, it being written (Leviticus 19:18): \"And you shall love your neighbor as yourself\" — Choose a humane death for him.] R. Yehudah says: But if he died by their hands [i.e., by strangulation, before the dropping of the brand], they would not have performed the mitzvah of burning! Rather, [they do not choke him, but] they force his mouth open with tongs, kindle a brand, and throw it into his mouth. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] R. Elazar b. R. Tzaddok said: But once the daughter of a priest committed adultery and they encircled her with twigs and burned her alive! They answered: That beth-din was not versed in the law. [They were Sadducees, who do not expound identities (gezeirah shavah), but who interpret the verse literally.]",
+ "\tExecution by decapitation: They would cut off his head with a sword, in the manner of (execution by) the monarchy. R. Yehudah says: This is degrading. [For he is killed standing and he falls.] Rather, his head is placed on a block and it is chopped off with a hatchet. [The baraitha explains that R. Yehudah disagrees with the rabbis by reason of (Leviticus 18:3): \"And in their statutes you shall not walk.\" And the rabbis counter: Since death by the sword is alluded to in the Torah, viz. (Exodus 21:20): \"Vengeance shall be taken,\" they (their statutes) are not our source. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] Execution by strangulation: They would steep him in refuse until his thighs, place a hard cloth in a soft one, and tie it around his throat; and one pulled from one end, and another from the other, until he died.]",
+ "\tThese are the ones executed by stoning: [Stoning is explicitly stated in respect to some; and where it is not stated, it is written \"His blood is in him,\" \"Their blood is in them,\" which alludes to stoning. The halachah is derived from what is stated in respect to necromancers and soothsayers (Leviticus 20:27): \"With stones shall they stone them; their blood is in them.\"] a man who lives with his mother, with his father's wife, with his daughter-in-law, with a male, and with a beast; a woman who brings a beast upon herself, a blasphemer, an idolator, one who gives of his seed to the Molech [This tanna holds that Molech is not idolatry, but a gentile practice, the two (idolatry and Molech) being separately adduced], Ba'al Ov and yidoni (see 7:7), one who desecrates the Sabbath, one who curses his father and his mother [This is more severe than striking them, two (sins) obtaining: shaming one's father and mother and uttering the L rd's name in vain, it being ruled that he is not liable until he curses them with the Name], one who lives with a betrothed maiden, one who turns [an individual] astray (to idolatry), one who turns [a city] astray, a witch, [viz. (Exodus 22:17): \"A witch you shall not allow to live,\" followed by (Ibid. 18): \"Anyone who lies with beast shall be put to death.\" Just as there, stoning is indicated, here, too, stoning (is understood)], and a rebellious son (ben sorer umoreh). One who lives with his mother is liable on the count of his mother and on the count of his father's wife. [He is liable for two sin-offerings — kareth (cutting-off) and discreteness of sin-offering (even in one body) being stated in respect to all of the arayoth (illicit relations)]. R. Yehudah says: He is liable only on the count of his mother alone. One who lives with his father's wife is liable on the count of his father's wife and on the count of another man's wife, whether in his father's lifetime or after his death, whether she were betrothed or married. [(\"whether she were betrothed\":) For once he betroths her, she is regarded as his wife, viz. \"If a man takes a wife.\" From the time of \"taking,\" she is called his wife. This \"taking\" is betrothal, as is derived by identity, \"taking\" - \"taking,\" from the field of Efron (Genesis 23:13)]. One who lives with his daughter-in-law is liable on the count of his daughter-in-law and on the count of another man's wife, whether in his son's lifetime or after his death, whether she were betrothed or married. A man who lives with a male or with a beast, and a woman who brings a beast upon her: If the man sinned, how has the beast sinned? But because a man was \"undone\" by it, Scripture commands that it be stoned. Another interpretation: So that the beast not walk through the marketplace and people say: \"This is the one for which that man was stoned.\"",
+ "\tOne who blasphemes is not liable until he mentions the Name [and \"blesses\" the Name by the Name (i.e., \"May X curse X\"), it being written (Leviticus 24:16): \"And he who blasphemes the Name … if he blasphemes the Name\" — blaspheming the Name by the Name.] R. Yehoshua b. Karchah said: The entire day [of deliberation] they would examine the witnesses (to blaspheming) with an epithet (kinui) [A \"substitute object\" of a curse is called \"kinui\" by the sages; and, in Scripture (Job 32:22): \"Ki loyadati achaneh\" (\"For I know now how to mince words.\")] — \"May Yossi smite Yossi.\" [I have heard that the Tetragrammaton is alluded to by \"Yossi\" for it (Yossi) has four letters, the gematria of which (86) is \"Elokim.\"] When the judgment was concluded [and beth-din came to pronounce him liableb], they could not execute him [on the basis of the testimony that they heard, for they had heard from their mouths only a curse] by epithet.] But everyone is sent out, [it being demeaning to utter a \"blessing of the Name\" in public], and they ask the senior witness (what he heard) and say to him: \"Repeat what you heard explicitly,\" and he does so. And the judges stand upon their feet, and they rend (their garments) and do not resew them [in a \"finished\" manner, with Alexandrine stitching, where the rent is not noticeable; but other stitching is permitted.], and the second witness says: \"I, too, heard as he did.\" [and he need not repeat it explicitly], and the third says: \"I, too, heard as he did.\" [This is in accordance with the view that just as two (witnesses) constitute one testimony, so do three.]",
+ "\tOne who serves idolatry (is executed by stoning), whether he serves it [in its usual manner] or by slaughtering to it, smoking incense to it, or pouring libations to it, bowing down to it [(Though one of these four is not its usual mode of worship, he is nonetheless liable (to stoning). And with all other modes, he is not liable unless it be the usual one.)], taking it upon oneself as a god, [even by speech alone, this being likened to slaughtering, viz. (Exodus 32:8): \"And they slaughtered to it and said: 'This is your god, etc.'\"], and saying to it: \"You are my god\" [before it. This \"sheds light\" on what precedes. For if we learned the former alone, we would think that one were liable (for worship) only before it, but not otherwise. We, therefore, learn the latter — \"before it\" — implying that the former (speaks of worship) not before it, in spite of which he is liable.] But if one embraces it, kisses it, sweeps before it, sprinkles before it, washes it, anoints it, clothes it, or shods it, he transgresses a negative commandment, [there being a superfluous \"and you shall not serve them\" (to this end.)] If one vows in its name [e.g., \"I forbid to myself all the fruits in the world in the name of that idolatry\"], or if one swears in its name, he transgresses a negative commandment, [viz. (Exodus 23:13): \"And the names of other gods you shall not mention.\" If one defecates before Ba'al Peor, this is its conventional mode of worship, [so that even if his intent were to shame it, he is liable for a sin-offering.] If one casts a stone at Markulis, this is its conventional mode of worship. [And one who removes a stone from before it is also liable, it being served in this fashion, too. (\"Markolis\" = \"reverse of praise.\" \"mar\" = exchange, as in \"bamar dishchuta,\" \"bamar dikanta.\" \"kolis\" = praise.) And even if his intent were to stone it, he is liable for a sin-offering.]",
+ "\tOne who gives of his seed to Molech is not liable until he gives him to [the priests of] Molech and passes him through fire [from one side to the other.] If he gave him to Molech but did not pass him through fire, or passed him through fire but did not give him to Molech, he is not liable — until he gives him to Molech and passes him through fire, [it being written in one place (Leviticus 18:21): \"…you shall not give to pass,\" and, in another (Deuteronomy 18:10): \"There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through fire\" — Just as there, through fire; here, too, through fire.] Ba'al Ov, a conjurer [He takes the skull of a dead person after the flesh has decayed, smokes incense to it, asks the future of it, and it answers.], one who speaks from his armpits [(And there are some who project the answers of the dead through their armpits)], and yidoni, one who speaks through his mouth — these are liable to stoning. [(\"yidoni\":) an animal called \"yidoa,\" whose face, arms, and legs are like those of a man. It is tied by a cord from its navel to a root in the ground, which gives it life. In hunting it, they shoot arrows at the cord until it is severed and it dies immediately. In the language of the sages it is called \"the man of the mountain.\"] And one who inquires of them [to inform him of the future (as in the instance of Saul)] is in violation of an exhortation, [viz. (Leviticus 19:31): \"Do not turn to the ovoth, etc.\"]",
+ "\tOne who desecrates the Sabbath through an act where witting transgression is subject to kareth, and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering (is liable to stoning). One who curses his father and mother is not liable (to stoning) unless he does so by the Name, [i.e., by one of the distinct names.] If he cursed them by an epithet [\"Merciful,\" Gracious,\" \"Long-suffering\"], R. Meir says that he is liable; and the sages, that he is not liable.",
+ "\tIf one lives with a betrothed maiden, he is not liable (to stoning) unless she be a maiden (na'arah) [and not a minor, less than twelve years and one day, and not a bogereth, older than twelve years six months and one day], a virgin, [and not one who had had intercourse. And if she had had non-normative (i.e., anal) intercourse, she is still considered a virgin, so that even if ten men had such intercourse with her, all are liable to stoning], betrothed [and not wedded], and in her father's house. [For if her father had given her over to the husband's messengers, one who lives with her thereafter is not liable to stoning but to strangulation.] If two men lived with her, the first is liable to stoning, and the second to strangulation.",
+ "\tMesith (one who turns another astray (to idolatry): This is a hedyot (a plain person) who turns a hedyot astray. [Only a hedyot who turns one astray; for a prophet who does so is liable to death by strangulation. And not necessarily one who turns a hedyot astray. For we find no distinction between one who turns a hedyot astray and one who turns a prophet astray. The exclusion, rather, applies to a populace, as with those who turn a city of Israel astray, whose death is by strangulation.] (As when) one says to another: \"There is a god in such and such place. Thus does it eat; thus does it drink. Thus does it confer favor (upon those who serve it). Thus does it punish (those who do not serve it).\" \"Snares\" are not set for all of those liable to execution by Torah law except this. If he said (\"Let us serve another god\") to two men, and they are his witnesses, they bring him to beth-din and stone him. If he said it to one, he (the latter) says: \"I have some friends who would like this.\" If he were clever and could not speak before them [i.e., if he told the one he would turn astray that he could not speak before them (because of his fear of beth-din)], witnesses are placed in concealment for him behind the fence, and he (the one he would turn astray) says to him: \"Tell me what you told me in private\" [i.e., \"There is no one with us and you can now tell me what you told me before.\"], the other tells him, and he responds: \"How can we forsake our G d in heaven and go and serve wood and stones?\" If he desists, good; but if he says: \"This is our duty, and it thus becomes us,\" those standing behind the fence bring him to beth-din and stone him. If he says [one of the following, he is a mesith (a \"seducer\" to idolatry) and liable (to stoning)]: \"I shall serve,\" I shall go and serve,\" \"Let us go and serve,\" \"I shall slaughter,\" \"I shall go and slaughter,\" \"Let us go and slaughter,\" \"I shall offer incense,\" \"I shall go and offer incense,\" \"Let us go and offer incense,\" \"I shall pour a libation,\" \"I shall go and pour a libation,\" \"Let us go and pour a libation,\" \"I shall bow down,\" \"I shall go and bow down,\" Let us go and bow down.\" Madiach (one who turns [many] astray): This is one who says: \"Let us go and serve idolatry\" [i.e., he is not liable until he says it in the plural.]",
+ "\tA witch who performs [an actual] deed is liable [to stoning], but not one who \"fools the eyes\" [i.e., one who gives the impression that an act is being performed, when nothing is being done.] R. Akiva says in the name of R. Yehoshua: Two pick cucumbers [by witchcraft before us]. One picks and is not liable [to death (by stoning)], and the other picks and is liable. [How so?] The one who performs an act [i.e., the one who actually picks them through witchcraft] is liable. The one who \"fools the eyes\" [i.e., who gives the impression that they are being gathered in one place, when they are not moved at all] is not liable."
+ ],
+ [
+ " \tBen sorer umoreh (a rebellious son): From when does one become \"a rebellious son?\" From the time he brings two hairs, [when he is thirteen years and one day old; for before this time, hairs are not a sign (of maturity), but only fuzz] until he is \"circled\" by a beard. The lower and not the upper [i.e., this \"beard\" spoken of by the rabbis is the lower, that circling the penis], but the sages speak euphemistically, viz. (Deuteronomy 21:18): \"If there be to a man a son…\" — a son, and not a daughter; a son, and not a man. A minor is not liable, not having entered the realm of mitzvoth. [When he is \"circled\" by the lower beard, he is a man. And even though he is called a \"son\" when he is a minor, we cannot hold him liable before he brings two hairs, a minor being exempt, not having entered the realm of mitzvoth. For this reason, his liability begins thereafter. The verse is understood thus: \"If there be to a man a son\" — a son close to the estate of man. But when he is circled by the lower beard he is already a man.]",
+ "\tFrom when is he liable? When he eats half a manah (a portion) of meat, [this, when the meat is half-cooked, as the robbers eat it] and drinks half a log of Italian wine, [choice wine, that he becomes habituated to and which he drinks half-diluted.] R. Yossi says: A manah of meat and a log of wine. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.] (In the following instances he does not become a ben sorer umoreh): if he ate (meat and wine) in a mitzvah repast; if he ate at the intercalation of the month [Even though they serve only bread and pulse alone, and he brought meat and wine, since he is engaged in (the performance of) a mitzvah, he will not become habituated to it.]; if he ate second-tithe in Jerusalem [Since it is in keeping with the mitzvah, it being stated in that regard (Deuteronomy 14:26): \"…of cattle, flocks, wine, and strong drink,\" he will not become habituated to it]; if he ate carrion and treifah, abominations and reptiles, [it being written (Deuteronomy 21:20): \"…not heeding our voice,\" and not this one, who does not even heed the voice of the L rd]; if he ate tevel (untithed food), first-tithe whose terumah had not been taken, second-tithe and hekdesh (dedicated food) which had not been redeemed; if he ate something which is a mitzvah [of the rabbis, to include the mourners' consolation meal. (For I might assume that \"mitzvah repast,\" above, referred to Cohanim eating dedicated food or the eating of the Paschal lamb)], and something which is a transgression [to include (eating on) a communal fast, forbidden by the rabbis]; if he ate any food (against his parents' wishes), but did not eat meat; if he drank any drink, but did not drink wine — he does not become a ben sorer umoreh, until he eats meat and drinks wine, it being written (Deuteronomy 21:20): \"a glutton and a guzzler.\" And even though there is no proof for this, there is corroboration for it in (Proverbs 23:20): \"Do not be among the guzzlers of wine and the gluttons of meat for themselves.\"",
+ "\tIf he stole from his father and ate in his father's domain] Even though he can commonly steal something from his father, since he eats it in his father's domain, he is always in fear of being seen by his father and will not persist in his stealing.]; (if he stole) from others and ate in the domain of others [(It is not common for one always to be able to steal from others, and he will not become habituated to it.)], (if he stole) from others and ate in his father's domain — he does not become a ben sorer umoreh, until he steals from his father, [from whom he can commonly steal] and eats in the domain of others, [where he is not in fear of his father, so that he definitely becomes habituated to stealing.] R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: (He is not liable) until he steals from his father and from his mother, [from property that her husband has no rights in, as when another gave her property as a gift on condition that her husband has no rights in it. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah.]",
+ "\tIf his father wanted (to have him declared a ben sorer umoreh), and his mother did not; or if his father did not want it and his mother did — he does not become a ben sorer umoreh, until both want it. R. Yehudah says: If his mother were not similar to his father [in voice, appearance, and stature], he does not become a ben sorer umoreh, [it being written (Deuteronomy 21:20): \"He does not heed our voice.\" Since it is not written \"our voices,\" the implication is that they both have \"one\" voice. And since their voices must be similar, so must their appearance and stature be similar. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] If one of them were gidem [(if his hand were cut off)], or lame, or mute, or blind, or deaf, he does not become a ben sorer umoreh, it being written (Ibid 19): \"Then his father and mother shall seize him\" — and not gidmin. (Ibid.): \"And they shall take him out\" — and not lame. (Ibid. 20): \"And they shall say\" — and not mute. (Ibid.): \"This, our son\" [The implication is that they show him] — and not blind. (Ibid.): \"He does not heed our voice\" — and not deaf. [If he said to them: \"I do not accept what you say,\" they do not hear him. And even though they see afterwards that he does not do as they commanded, still, \"He does not heed our voice\" implies that they say he does not heed them when they speak, hearing him say that he does not accept what they say.] He is warned before three and given stripes. [This is the intent: He is warned before two not to persist (in his behavior). And if he does not heed them, he is given stripes before a beth-din of three, as taught above (1:2): \"Stripes, by three.\" For \"And they shall chastise him\" in respect to ben sorer umoreh (Deuteronomy 21:18) refers to stripes, it being written here: \"ben sorer umoreh,\" and, elsewhere (Ibid. 25:2): \"And it shall be, if bin of stripes is the wicked one.\"] If he reverts to his evil ways, he is judged by twenty-three, and he is not stoned until the first three are present, it being written (Ibid.): \"This, our son — this one, who received stripes in your presence. [And even though this is required for \"'This,' and not blind\" (see above), if the only teaching were for \"received stripes in your presence,\" it could have been written: \"He, our son.\" Why \"This, our son\"? To teach both.] If he fled before his judgment were concluded and then were \"encircled with the lower beard,\" he is not liable. [For if he were to commit his trespass now, he would not be liable to stoning.] And if he fled after his judgment had been concluded and then were \"encircled with the lower beard,\" he is liable. [He is like \"a killed man,\" and he is liable even after many years.]",
+ "\tA ben sorer umoreh is judged by his end. [In the end he would exhaust his father's money, seek his accustomed fare and not find it, and go out to the crossroads and rob people. The Torah said:] Let him die innocent (of bloodshed), and let him not die guilty. For the death of the wicked is of benefit to them, [for they stop sinning] and of benefit to the world, [leaving it in tranquility]. (The death of) the righteous is evil to them, [for (if they lived longer) they would have added merit], and evil to the world, [for they protected and reproved their generation.] Wine and sleep for the wicked is of benefit to them and of benefit to the world. [For so long as they eat and sleep, they do not sin and they do not harm others.] (Wine and sleep) for the righteous is detrimental to them, [for they do not study Torah], and detrimental to the world. [For when they leave off (studying Torah), punishment comes to the world.] The \"scattering\" of the wicked [i.e., their being kept apart, so that they cannot counsel and abet each other] is of benefit to them and of benefit to the world. (The scattering) of the righteous is evil for them and evil for the world. The gathering of the wicked is evil for them and evil for the world. (The gathering) of the righteous is of benefit to them and of benefit to the world. The tranquility of the wicked is evil for them and evil for the world. (The tranquility) of the righteous is of benefit to them and of benefit to the world.",
+ "\tOne (a thief) who is found breaking in, [about whom the Torah states that he may be killed (Exodus 22:1)] is judged by his end. [For in the end he would kill the owner if he resisted him to rescue his property]. If he broke in and broke a jug — If \"he has blood\" (i.e., if the owner may not kill the thief), he (the thief) is liable (to pay for the jug). [As with a father who breaks in to his son's house. It is known that the father will have compassion upon his son (and will not kill him), for which reason the son is not permitted to kill him, and if the father breaks a jug, he must pay for it.] If \"he has no blood,\" he is not liable. [With all other men who break in, if the owner kills them, \"he has no blood.\" Therefore, if he breaks a jug, he is not liable to pay for it. For since his life is forfeit, he does not pay, a man not being subject to both death and (monetary) payment.]",
+ "\tAnd these are the ones who are rescued [from a transgression] by their lives, [all men having the right to kill them to save them from the transgression]: one pursuing another to kill him, [it being written in respect to (the ravishing of) a betrothed maiden (Deuteronomy 22:26): \"For as a man would rise up against his neighbor and slay him, so is this thing.\" Slayer is hereby being likened to betrothed maiden, viz.: Just as a betrothed maiden may be saved by killing the pursuer, so a slayer may be saved (from transgression) by killing him. And betrothed maiden is derived from a verse, viz. (Ibid. 27): \"The betrothed maiden cried out and no one could save her,\" the implication being that if one could save her, he could resort to any means (even killing, if necessary,) to do so.], (one pursuing) a male (to sodomize him [This is derived from (Ibid. 26): \"And to the maiden (na'arah) you shall not do a thing.\" It is written \"na'ar\" (young man), without the heh. The same applies to all who are liable to kareth and judicial death penalties in the area of arayoth (illicit relations) — that they are rescued (from transgression) by their lives, it being written (Ibid.): \"a sin of death\": \"sin\" — kareth liability; \"death\" — judicial death penalty.], and (one pursuing) a betrothed maiden. But one pursuing a beast, [though this is similar to arayoth], and one who would desecrate the Sabbath or serve idolatry [though both of these deny the Deity] are not saved (from transgression) by their lives. [And, it goes without saying that the other would-be transgressors who are liable to kareth and judicial death penalties not related to arayoth, are not saved by their lives. It is not permitted to kill them at all until they commit the transgression in the presence of witnesses and become liable to judicial death penalty.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tAnd these are the ones who are put to death by burning: one who lives with a woman and her daughter [i.e., with a woman whose daughter he has already married — his mother-in-law] and the daughter of a Cohein, who committed adultery. [She is also put to death by burning.] Included in \"a woman and her daughter\" [(i.e., burning is explicitly indicated for \"a woman and her daughter,\" viz. (Leviticus 20:14): \"and if a man takes a woman and her mother … in fire shall they be burned,\" and all the others are derived from this)] (are) his daughter [from his \"ravished one,\" who is not the daughter of his wife, for whom he is liable by reason of \"his wife's daughter\"], the daughter of his daughter or the daughter of his son [from his ravished one], his wife's daughter, [whether she be his daughter or his stepdaughter], her daughter's daughter or her son's daughter, and his mother-in-law. [Even though this is taught explicitly above and is not derived from a derashah, since there are taught in this context \"the mother of his mother-in-law\" and \"the mother of his father-in-law,\" which are derived from a derashah, \"his mother-in-law\" is taught in passing, along with them.] And these are the ones who are put to death by the sword: a murderer, and the men of an idolatrous city. A murderer: If one struck his neighbor with stone or iron, or pressed him down in water or fire, so that he could not rise [e.g., if he held his head underwater so that he could not raise it], and he died, he is liable. If he pressed him into water or fire, but he could have escaped, he is not liable. If he incited a dog or a snake against him, he is not liable. If he caused a snake to bite him, [i.e., if he held a snake in his hand and placed its teeth against another's body], R. Yehudah rules him liable [He holds that a snake's venom is in its teeth, so that when he places its teeth against one's body, it is as if he kills him, and he is liable], and the sages rule him not liable. [They hold that the snake brings up its venom of itself, so that it is not as if the man killed him directly but only indirectly, and he is not liable. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] If one struck his neighbor, whether with a stone or with his fist, and they predicted that he would die, [(but if they predicted that he would live, even the rabbis hold that he is not liable)], and his condition improved, [whereupon they predicted that he would live], and then it worsened and he died, he is liable. R. Nechemiah says that he is not liable, for there are indications [that he did not die because of this blow.]",
+ "\tIf one's intent were to kill a beast and he killed a man; a gentile and he killed a Jew; a premature child (who would not survive) and he killed one who would have survived, he is not liable. If his intent were to strike him a non lethal blow on his hips, and it went to his heart, where it was lethal, and he died, he is not liable. [For both must be satisfied: that he intend to kill and that the blow be sufficient to kill.] If his intent were to strike him a lethal blow on his heart, where it would be lethal, and it went to his hips, where it was not sufficient to kill, and he died, he is not liable. If his intent were to strike an adult, but the blow would not suffice to do so, and it went to a child, where it would suffice, and he died, he is not liable. If his intent were to strike a child, and the blow would suffice to kill him, and it went to an adult, whom it would not suffice to kill, and he died, he is not liable. But if his intent were to strike one on his hips, where the blow would suffice to kill him, and it went to his heart and he died, he is liable. If his intent were to strike an adult, whom the blow would suffice to kill, and it went to a child, who died, he is liable. R. Shimon says: Even if his intent were to kill one and he killed another, he is not liable. [This does not refer to the latter statement of the first tanna, viz.: \"If his intent were to strike an adult, whom the blow would suffice to kill, and it went to a child, who died, he is liable\"; for if it did, it should simply have been stated: \"R. Shimon says that he is not liable.\" And why repeat: \"Even if his intent were to kill one and he killed another, etc.\"? The first tanna states this explicitly. Why the \"Even\"? R. Shimon, rather, refers to the first statement, viz.: \"If one's intent were to kill a beast and he killed a man, he is not liable,\" the implication being that if it were his intent to kill a man and he killed another man, he is liable. It is in this regard that R. Shimon says: \"Even if his intent were to kill one and he killed another, he is not liable.\" The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
+ "\tIf a murderer were mixed in with others, all are not liable. [e.g., If two men were standing and an arrow went out from between them and killed someone, both are not liable. And even if one of them were known for saintliness, so that it is certain that he did not shoot the arrow, still, the other is not made liable on this presumption.] R. Yehudah says: They are incarcerated. [Our Mishnah is defective. It was taught thus: \"And if an ox whose judgment (for killing a man) were pronounced became intermixed with other oxen, they are all stoned.\" For, perforce, it is forbidden to derive benefit from all of them — even if they were a thousand — because of the one intermixed with them. Therefore, they are all stoned, so that the mitzvah of stoning be satisfied with the one liable to it.] R. Yehudah says: They are incarcerated. It is not necessary to stone them, but they are all gathered into a room and they die of hunger. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] All those liable to judicial death penalty who became intermixed with one another are given the lesser penalty. If men sentenced to be stoned became intermixed with others sentenced to be burned, R. Shimon says: They are stoned, for burning is more severe. The sages say: They are burned, for stoning is more severe. R. Shimon said to them: \"If burning were not more severe, it would not be administered to a Cohein's daughter who committed adultery.\" They said to him: If stoning were not more severe, it would not be administered to a blasphemer and an idolator!\" If men sentenced to decapitation became intermixed with others sentenced to strangulation, R. Shimon says (they are to be decapitated) with the sword, [strangulation being more severe.] The sages say: They are to be strangled, [decapitation begin more severe].",
+ "\tIf one were liable to two judicial death penalties, he is given the more severe. [i.e., If one committed a lesser (capital) transgression, and the verdict were reached on that, and then he committed a more severe (capital) transgression, I might think that since the verdict had been reached for the lesser transgression, he is a \"killed man\"; we are, therefore apprised otherwise.] If he committed a transgression punishable by two judicial death penalties, [e.g., If he lived with his mother-in-law, another man's wife], he is given the more severe, [i.e., burning, by reason of mother-in-law, and not strangulation by reason of another man's wife.] R. Yossi says: He is judged according to the first relationship [that he must shun, and not according to the latter, even if it is more severe. For R. Yossi holds that one prohibition does not \"take\" upon another, even one that is more severe upon one that is less severe. So that if he wed the daughter of a widow, who was first his mother-in-law when she was single, and then she married, he is sentenced to burning (if he lives with her). And if she were married and then she became his mother-in-law, he is sentenced to strangulation, the penalty for living with a married woman, which she was first (before she became his mother-in-law). The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.]",
+ "\tIf one were given stripes and repeated, [i.e., if he were given stripes twice for a transgression punishable by kareth (for all who are liable to kareth are given stripes), when he commits the same transgression a third time,] beth-din place him into a cell, [containing the space of a man's stature and not more, and they feed him first scant bread and \"water of distress\" until his intestines shrink] and (then) they feed him barley, which swells his intestines until his stomach bursts. If one kills someone without witnesses, [i.e., in the absence of testimony that would make him liable to the death penalty — though it is known to beth-din that it is true, that he certainly killed; but the witnesses were refuted in cross-examination or sufficient warning was lacking], they place him in a cell and feed him scant bread and \"water of distress\" [first, and then they feed him barley until his stomach bursts. This is the same as the first part (of the Mishnah. What is lacking there is revealed here.]",
+ "\tIf one steals the kisvah [one of the ministering vessels, as in (Numbers 4:7): \"kesoth hanasech\"], or curses [ the L rd] in the name of idolatry, or cohabits with an Aramite woman [an idolatress], zealots slay him. [Those who are zealous for the honor of the L rd would slay him. This, if the woman is the daughter of idolators, (if it be) in the midst of the act, and in the presence of ten Jews. In the absence of one of these conditions, it is forbidden to kill him. But his punishment is stated by the prophet (Malachi 2:12): \"The L rd will cut off from the man that commits this, etc.\" And he is given stripes four times by ordinance of the scribes: by reason of (cohabiting with) a niddah, by reason of a bondswoman, by reason of an idolatress, and by reason of a harlot.] If a Cohein officiates in a state of uncleanliness, his fellow Cohanim do not bring him to beth-din but the pirchei kehunah (the young priests) [whose beards have begun to sprout (lifroach)] take him outside of the azarah (the Temple court) and split his skull with clubs. If a zar (a non-priest) officiates in the Temple, R. Akiva says: (His death is) by strangulation, [it being written here (Numbers 18:7): \"And the stranger who draws near shall be put to death,\" and elsewhere (Deuteronomy 13:6): \"And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death.\" Just as there, by strangulation, here, too, by strangulation.] And the sages say: (His death is) at the hands of Heaven, [it being written here: \"He shall be put to death,\" and, elsewhere (Numbers 17:28): \"Everyone who draws near the tabernacle of the L rd must die.\" Just as there, at the hands of Heaven, here, too, at the hands of Heaven. The halachah is in accordance with the sages. Death at the hands of Heaven is less severe than kareth. For with kareth, one bears transgression after death if he did not repent adequately, whereas with death at the hands of Heaven, he bears nothing after death. Rashi writes in Shabbath (25a) that with death at the hands of Heaven, his days are shortened, but he does not go childless, whereas with kareth, both obtain: his days are cut off and he goes childless. Those liable to death at the hands of Heaven for (abuse of) the sanctuary and of sanctified objects are eleven: one who eats tevel (untithed produce), an unclean Cohein who eats clean terumah, a non-priest who eats terumah, a non-priest, an unclean (priest), and a tvul yom (one who immersed in the daytime and did not wait until sunset) who officiates, one lacking atonement, one lacking (the full complement of priestly) garments, one who did not lave his hands and feet, one who is drunk, and one with disheveled hair. Death is explicitly mentioned in respect to some, and some are derived by our rabbis (as subject to death) through the tradition by identity (gezeirah shavah) or by comparison (hekesh)]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tAll of Israel have a share in the world to come, viz. (Isaiah 60:12): \"And your people, all righteous, forever shall inherit the land, the sprout of My plantings, the work of My hands, to be glorified.\" [(\"All of Israel have a share:\") Even those who were executed by beth-din for their wickedness have a share in the world to come. The \"world to come\" here is the world after the resurrection, when the dead are destined to rise and to stand in their bodies and souls in eternal life, like the sun, the moon, and the stars, as stated in the Gemara in this chapter: \"The dead that are destined to arise do not return to their dust.\" And in the world to come there is no eating or drinking even though there is a body; but the righteous sit with their crowns on their heads and bask in the Divine radiance. And because not all Jews are equal in it, but the greater (is positioned) according to his higher eminence, and the lesser according to his lower eminence — for this reason it is taught \"they have a share.\"] And these do not have a share in the world to come: one who says that there is no resurrection according to the Torah [The Gemara states: \"Why all this? It was taught: He denied the resurrection; therefore, he has no share in the resurrection.\" From here I derive that the \"world to come\" of this Mishnah is not the world where the souls abide at this time, but the world of the resurrection, as I have explained.], one who says that the Torah is not from Heaven, and an apikores (a heretic) [one who demeans Torah scholars, and, it goes without saying, one who demeans the Torah itself.] R. Akiva says: Also, one who reads in the \"outer (i.e., interdicted) books\" [books of heresy, such as those of Aristotle the Greek and his colleagues. Included in this is one who reads the chronicles of idolatrous kings, romantic poetry, and literature of indulgence (of the passions), which make neither for wisdom nor benefit, but only for loss of time], and one who utters as an incantation over a wound (Exodus 15:26): \"All the sickness which I placed in Egypt, I will not place in you, for I am the L rd who heals you.\" [It is only when he spits that he has no share in the world to come, the Name of Heaven not to be mentioned over spittle.] Abba Shaul says: Also, one who pronounces the Name [the tetragrammaton] as it is written.",
+ "\tThree kings and four non-kings have no share in the world to come. Three kings: Yeravam, Achav, and Menasheh. R. Yehudah says: Menasheh has a share in the world to come, viz. (II Chronicles 33:13): \"and he prayed to Him, and He was entreated of him, and He heard his supplication, and He returned him to Jerusalem to his kingdom.\" They countered: He was returned to his kingdom, but not to life in the world to come.] \"Four non-kings\": Bilam, Doeg, Achitofel, Gechazi. [(\"Three kings, etc.\":) Even though they were great and wise, they have no share in the world to come, for their faith was not complete. And even though Bilam came from a different nation, and we learned: \"All of Israel have a share in the world to come,\" because it is stated that the saints of the nations of the world have a share in the world to come, we are apprised that Bilam was not one of the saints of the nations of the world.]",
+ "\tThe generation of the flood have no share in the world to come and do not rise to be judged, viz. (Genesis 6:3): \"My spirit will not judge in man forever\" — neither judgment nor spirit, [i.e., they do not stand in judgment and they do not have the spirit to live with the righteous who have a share (in the world to come)]. The generation of the Tower of Babel have no share in the world to come, viz. (Ibid. 11:8): \"And the L rd scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth.\" \"And the L rd scattered them\" — in this world; (Ibid. 9): \"and from there the L rd scattered them\" — in respect to the world to come. The people of Sodom have no share in the world to come, viz. (Ibid. 13:13): \"And the people of Sodom were extremely evil and sinful to the L rd\": \"evil\" — in this world; \"sinful\" — in respect to the world to come. But they arise to be judged (at the resurrection). R. Nechemiah says: Both (the generation of the Tower of Babel and the generation of Sodom) do not arise for judgment, viz. (Psalms 1:5): \"Therefore, the wicked shall not arise in judgment, nor the sinners in the congregation of the righteous\": \"Therefore, the wicked shall not arise in judgment\" — the generation of the flood; \"nor the sinners in the congregation of the righteous\" — the people of Sodom. They countered: They do not arise in the congregation of the righteous (i.e., in the world to come), but they do arise in the congregation of the wicked (for judgment at the resurrection). The spies have no share in the world to come, viz. (Numbers 14:37): \"And there died the men who had uttered evil report of the land in the plague before the L rd\": \"and there died\" — in this world; \"in the plague\" — in respect to the world to come. The generation of the desert have no share in the world to come and they do not arise for judgment, viz. (Numbers 14:35): \"In this desert shall they be consumed, and there shall they die.\" These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Eliezer says: Of them it is said (Psalms 50:5): \"Gather unto Me My saints, who entered into My covenant through sacrifices.\" [They entered into a covenant with the L rd through sacrifices and peace-offerings, viz. (Exodus 24:5): \"And they sacrificed peace-offerings,\" followed by (Ibid. 8): \"And he sprinkled it upon the people, and he said: 'Behold, the blood of the covenant!'\"] The congregation of Korach is not destined to ascend, viz. (Numbers 16:33): \"And the earth covered them up\" — in this world; \"and they were lost from the midst of the congregation\" — in the world to come. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Eliezer says: Of them it is said (I Samuel 2:6): \"The L rd puts to death and brings to life; He brings down to Sheol and brings up.\" The ten tribes are not destined to return [from the place whence they were exiled.] As to its being said that Jeremiah returned them and Yoshiyahu ben Amotz ruled over them — not all of them returned, but only part.], viz. (Deuteronomy 29:27): \"And He cast them into a different land as this day\" — Just as this day passes, not to return, they, too, have passed, not to return. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Eliezer says: Just as the day darkens and brightens, so the ten tribes. Just as it is dark for them, so it is destined to be bright for them.",
+ "\tThe men of a city condemned (for idolatry) have no share in the world to come, viz. (Deuteronomy 13:14): \"There have gone out men of wickedness (belial) from your midst, and they have turned astray the inhabitants of their city.\" [(\"men of belial\":) men who do not rise (einam olim) at the resurrection. And those who are turned astray are like those who turn astray (in this regard)]. And they are not killed (by the sword) unless the inciters (to idolatry) be from the same city, [it being written: \"and they have turned astray the inhabitants of their city,\" and not the inhabitants of a different city], and from the same tribe, [it being written: \"from your midst\" — from the midst of the tribe itself], and (they are not killed by the sword) unless the majority [of the city] are incited, [it being written: \"the inhabitants of their city,\" connoting the \"habitation\" of the city, i.e., the majority.], and unless men incite them. If they were incited by women or minors, or if only a minority were incited, or if the inciters were outside it, [i.e., from a different city], they are as individuals, [who served idolatry. They are executed by stoning and their property \"escapes.\"] and they [the men of a condemned city] require two witnesses and warning for each one. [They would multiply courts, and whoever was found to have served idolatry with witnesses and warning was separated until it was determined whether they (the separated ones) were the majority. If they were, they were brought to the great beth-din, where their judgment was concluded and they were executed by the sword and their property was destroyed. And if they were found not to be the majority of the city, they were executed by stoning and their property \"escaped.\"] This is a stringency of individuals (executed for idolatry) over a populace — that individuals (are executed) by stoning, for which reason their property escapes; and the populace (are executed) by the sword, for which reason their property is destroyed.",
+ "\t(Deuteronomy 13:16): \"Smite shall you smite, etc.\" A donkey or camel caravan passing from place to place rescues it. [(The members of) a donkey or camel caravan who remain in a city thirty days are reckoned among the inhabitants of the city. [(\"they rescue it\":) If the majority of the city were incited to idolatry, and a minority not, and the members of the caravan who were not incited make the minority a majority, they \"rescue\" the city from property loss, causing them to be judged as individuals. They can, likewise, cause the city to be judged as a condemned one if they were incited along with them to form a majority, but the tanna \"pursues merit.\" Furthermore, it is more probable that the caravan members would tend not to be so close to the people of the city as to be incited along with them.] (Ibid.): \"Lay waste it, and all that is in it, etc.\": From here it is derived that the property of the righteous within it is destroyed; (the property of the righteous) outside it escapes. And (the property) of the wicked, whether in it or outside it, is destroyed.",
+ "\tAs it is written (Deuteronomy 13:17): \"And all of its spoil you shall gather into its square, etc.\" If it has no square, a square is made for it. If its square were outside it, [i.e., if the gathering place of the men of the city were outside it], it is moved inside it. (Ibid.): \"And you shall burn with fire the city and all its spoil, entirely, for the L rd your G d\": \"its spoil,\" and not the spoil of Heaven — whence it was ruled: Its consecrated objects are to be redeemed [That is, they are not burned, but they require redemption like all consecrated objects.], its terumoth are to be left to spoil. [The Gemara construes this as an instance of terumah in the hand of a Cohein, in which instance it is the property of the Cohein and is subject to the interdict of a condemned city. However, the terumoth were not burned, as the rest of its spoil was, not being demeaned to this extent. For this reason they were left to spoil. And terumah in the hand of an Israelite is \"the spoil of Heaven\" and is given to a Cohein in a different city.] Its second-tithe and its holy writings are to be secreted. [(\"second-tithe\":) Even though it is the property of the Israelite, to be eaten by him, since it is called \"holy,\" it is not burned but secreted.] (Ibid.): \"entirely, for the L rd your G d.\" R. Shimon says: The Holy One Blessed be He said: If you execute judgment against a condemned city, I shall account it to you as if you sacrificed a burnt-offering \"entirely\" before Me. \"And it shall be a heap for ever; it shall not be built again.\" Even gardens and orchards (may not be planted there). [\"again,\" connoting \"completely\"] R. Akiva says: \"It shall not be built again\": It may not be restored to its original state, [with habitations], but gardens and orchards may be planted there. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.] (Ibid. 18): \"And let there adhere to your hand naught from the spoil.\" For so long as the wicked are in the world, wrath is in the world; when the wicked go lost from the world, wrath departs from the world."
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tAnd these are the ones who are put to death by strangulation: one who strikes his father or mother, one who steals a soul of Israel (i.e., a kidnapper), an elder who rebels against beth-din [i.e., who defies the ruling of the great beth-din in \"the chamber of hewn stone\" (in Jerusalem), a false prophet, one who prophesies in the name of idolatry, one who lives with a married woman, and the zomemin of the daughter of a Cohein and her consort. [Even though they come to make her liable to burning, they are sentenced only to the death penalty they intended for the one who lived with her, i.e., strangulation, the regular penalty for adulterers, it being written (Leviticus 21:9): \"In fire shall she be burned\" — she, and not her consort. And (the halachah for) her zomemin is derived from (Deuteronomy 19:19): \"as he schemed to do to his brother\" — and not to his sister. [(\"and her consort\":) the consort of the married daughter of a Cohein; but if she were betrothed, she and her consort are executed by stoning.] If one strikes his father or mother he is not liable unless he makes a wound. This is a stringency of cursing (one's parents) over striking: If one curses them after (their) death, he is liable, [it being written (Leviticus 20:9): \"His father and his mother has he cursed\" — a superfluous verse to include (liability for cursing them) after (their) death]; and if he strikes them after their death, he is not liable, [for he is not liable unless he makes a wound, and there is no \"wound\" after death.] If one steals (i.e., kidnaps) a soul of Israel, he is not liable until he brings him into his domain, [it being written (Exodus 21:16): \"…and he be found in his hand,\" his \"hand\" being his domain. Similarly (Numbers 21:26): \"And he took his whole land from his hand.\"] . Yehudah says: Until he brings him into his domain and makes use of him, it being written (Deuteronomy 24:7): \"and he makes use of him and sells him.\" [\"use\" worth a perutah. And the first tanna rules him liable for \"use\" of even less than a perutah. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna.] If one steals his son, R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. B'roka rules him liable. The sages rule him not liable. [The rationale of the rabbis: It is written (Exodus 21:16): \"and he be found in his hand\" — a superfluous verse, for it is written (Deuteronomy 24:7): \"If there be found a man, etc.\" — to teach us: to exclude one who is already \"found\" (i.e., his son)]. If one steals a man who is half bondsman - half free, R. Yehudah rules him liable, and the sages, not liable. [(\"R. Yehudah rules him liable\":) it being written (Deuteronomy 24:7): \"of his brothers of the children of Israel\": \"of his brothers\" — to exclude bondsmen; \"of the children of Israel\": If it were written \"the children of Israel,\" we would exclude one who was half bondsman - half free. Now that it is written: \"of the children of Israel,\" this is an additional exclusion; \"and there is no exclusion after exclusion except for inclusion.\" And the rabbis hold that \"of his brothers\" does not exclude bondsmen, for they are his \"brothers\" in mitzvoth. Rather, \"the children of Israel\" — to exclude bondsmen; \"of the children of Israel\" — to exclude one who is half bondsman - half free. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
+ "\tAn elder who rebels against beth-din (is put to death by strangulation), viz. (Deuteronomy 17:8): \"If there be hidden from you a thing of judgment, etc.\" There were three batei-din there [in Jerusalem, concerning which it is written (Ibid.): \"Then you shall arise and go up.\"], one at the entrance to the Temple mount, [the eastern gate, inside the Chel (a place within the fortification of the Temple), before the ezrath nashim (the women's compartment)], one at the entrance of the azarah (the Temple court) [above it, as they crossed the ezrath nashim and came to the entrance of the ezrath Yisrael], and one in the chamber of hewn stone, [built in the midst of the azarah, part in sanctified ground, part in non-sanctified.] They come to the one at the entrance to the Temple mount, [(this elder who ruled in his city and with whom the beth-din in his city differed, Scripture requiring them to come up to Jerusalem.) He and the beth-din of his city come up to this beth-din at the entrance to the Temple mount, arriving there first.], and he says: \"Thus did I expound. Thus and thus did my colleagues expound. Thus did I teach. Thus and thus did my colleagues teach.\" If they (that beth-din) had heard it (the halachah in that matter), they tell them, and if not they come to those at the entrance of the azarah. He says: \"Thus did I expound, and thus did my colleagues expound. Thus did I teach, and thus did my colleagues teach.\" If they had heard, they tell them. And if not, these and the others come to the great beth-din in the chamber of hewn stone, whence Torah goes out to all of Israel, viz. (Deuteronomy 17:10): \"…from that place which the L rd chooses.\" If he returned to his city and he ruled again as he had ruled before, he is not liable. And if he ruled \"to do,\" he is liable, it being written (Ibid. 12): \"And the man who shall do willfully\" — he is not liable until he rules to do. A disciple who rules to do is not liable. [A disciple who had not attained to (expertise in) ruling and the beth-din in his city differed with him — If they came to the great beth-din and inquired, and he returned to his city and ruled as at first, he is not liable, for they should not have relied upon his ruling. The Torah made liable only an expert of beth-din, as is derived from (Ibid. 8): \"If there be hidden (ki yipalei) from you.\" Scripture speaks of an expert (muflah) of beth-din.] His severity, then, is found to be his lenity! [The severity of his transgression — ruling though he is not qualified to rule, compounded with his rebelling against beth-din — becomes his lenity, exempting him from the death penalty. For if he were an elder qualified to rule and he rebelled against beth-din, he would be put to death.]",
+ "\tA stringency of the words of the scribes over the words of the Torah: If one says that there are no tefillin, in transgression of the words of the Torah, he is not liable, [this not being \"ruling.\" For he is told (as it were): \"Go and learn!\"] (But if one says that) there are five frontlets (totafoth), adding to the words of the scribes, he is liable, [this constituting a ruling. And even though this only adds to the words of the scribes, he is liable. For in the medrash of the scribes it is written: The word \"letotafoth\" is written three times (Exodus 13:16, Deuteronomy 6:8, and Deuteronomy 11:18), twice defective and once plene, giving a total of four sections (in the head phylactery)].",
+ "\tHe (a rebellious elder) is executed neither by the beth-din of his city nor by the beth-din in Yavneh [If they inquired of the beth-din in the chamber of hewn stone, and they ruled for him, and he returned to his city and remained there many days, until the great Sanhedrin was exiled to Yavneh, and then he ruled as at first, he is not executed in Yavneh, even though the great Sanhedrin is there, and even if the Temple still stands, the great Sanhedrin not sitting in its place in the chamber of hewn stone.], but he is brought up to the great beth-din in Jerusalem and kept there until the festival, it being written (Deuteronomy 17:13): \"And all the people shall hear and fear and not presume again.\" These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yehudah says: His judgment is not delayed, but he is executed immediately, and it is written, and messengers are sent (to proclaim) in all places: \"This man, the son of this man, was found liable to the death penalty by beth-din.\"",
+ "\tA false prophet — one who prophesies what he did not hear [i.e., what was not stated in prophecy to any prophet], and what was not said to him, [but to his colleague, from whom he heard it, and he came and said that it was said to him] — his death is at the hands of man. [Both of these are false prophets, and their death is by strangulation, it being written (Deuteronomy 18:20): \"But the prophet who shall presume to speak a thing in My name\" — this is one who prophesies what he never heard — \"which I did not command him\" — but which I commanded to his neighbor. This is one who prophesies what was not said to him but which was said to his neighbor — \"that prophet shall be put to death\"; and every death mentioned in the Torah, unqualified, is strangulation.] But if one suppresses his prophecy, or makes light of the words of a prophet, or transgresses his own prophecy, his death is at the hands of Heaven, it being written (Ibid. 19): \"I shall require it of him.\" [It is written (Ibid. 19): \"And it shall be, the man who shall not heed (lo yishma) My words.\" It can be read \"lo yishma\" (i.e., another) \"will not heed,\" and \"lo yashmia\" \"he will not make heard,\" and \"lo yishmah,\" i.e., he himself \"will not heed,\" so that all three are included, followed by \"I shall require it of him\" — at the hands of Heaven.]",
+ "\tOne who prophesies in the name of idolatry, saying: \"Thus did this idolatry say\" (is put to death by strangulation), even if he (i.e., what he said) coincided with the halachah, to declare the unclean unclean, and the clean, clean. One who lives with a married woman, once she enters the groom's domain for marriage, [as when the father hands her over to the groom's messengers and she is still on the way to him, in which instance she is no longer regarded as being in \"her father's house\"], is put to death by strangulation. And the zomemin of the daughter of a Cohein and her consort (are put to death by strangulation). For all zomemin \"come forward\" for that death [that they would make the adjudged liable to], except the zomemin of the daughter of a Cohein and her consort [i.e., All who live (illicitly) with a woman are subject to the same death as she, except for the consort of the daughter of a Cohein, she being subject to burning, and he, to strangulation.]"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bc450ebcbe0daa87ee3ca3684174643f491a5961
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "versionSource": "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1",
+ "versionTitle": "William Davidson Edition - English",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 2.0,
+ "license": "CC-BY-NC",
+ "versionNotes": "English from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz",
+ "shortVersionTitle": "Koren - Steinsaltz",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Cases concerning monetary law are adjudicated by three judges. Cases concerning robbery and personal injury are adjudicated by three judges. Cases concerning damage that one is responsible for because he or his property caused the damage are adjudicated by three judges as well. Likewise, cases concerning payment for half the damage, which is paid in the event that an ox whose owner has not been warned that it gored more than two times gores another animal (see Exodus 21:35); cases concerning payment of double the principal by a thief who was caught stealing (see Exodus 22:3); and cases concerning payment of four or five times the principal by a thief who slaughtered or sold a stolen ox or a lamb (see Exodus 21:37) are all adjudicated by three judges. Cases concerning one who rapes or one who seduces a virgin girl, and must therefore pay the girl’s father fifty silver shekels (see Deuteronomy 22:29, Exodus 22:15); and cases concerning a defamer who falsely asserts that his wife was not a virgin when she married him, and brings false witnesses who testify that she committed adultery while betrothed to him and who must therefore pay the girl’s father one hundred silver shekels as well as receive lashes (see Deuteronomy 22:13–19): All of these are adjudicated by three judges; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Cases concerning a defamer are adjudicated by a court of twenty-three judges, which is the type of court authorized to judge cases of capital law, because this case includes the possibility of becoming a case of capital law. The husband brings witnesses that his wife committed adultery. If she is found guilty, she is liable to receive the death penalty. This punishment applies to the witnesses if they are exposed as conspiring witnesses.",
+ "Cases concerning the violation of prohibitions that render one liable to receive lashes are adjudicated by three judges. The Sages stated in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Cases concerning lashes are adjudicated by twenty-three judges. The intercalation of the month is performed by a panel of three judges. The intercalation of the year, meaning the decision to add an extra month to the year when necessary, is also decided by a panel of three judges; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The deliberations begin with three judges, and they debate the matter with five judges, and they conclude the matter with seven judges, due to the significance of the decision. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concedes that if they concluded the matter with only three judges, the intercalation is valid and it is a leap year.",
+ "Both the laying of hands by the Sages and the breaking of the heifer’s neck in a case where a person was found murdered and it is not known who killed him (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9) are performed in front of a panel of three judges; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda says: These rituals are performed in front of five judges. Both ḥalitza, the ritual through which the yavam, a surviving brother of a married man who died without sons, frees the yevama, the widow, of her levirate bond in a case where the yavam does not wish to marry the yevama (see Deuteronomy 25:5–10), and the refusal of a girl before reaching majority to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brother married her off, are performed before a court of three judges. The halakha concerning fruit of a fourth-year sapling and second-tithe produce is that they are to be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. If this is impractical, the produce can be redeemed and the redemption money brought to Jerusalem, where it is used to purchase food and drink. Valuation of fruit of a fourth-year sapling or second-tithe produce in cases where their value is not known is performed by three judges. The valuation of consecrated property for purposes of redemption is performed by three judges, and the valuations that are movable property (see Leviticus 27:1–8) are performed by three judges. Rabbi Yehuda says: One of the three judges must be a priest. And the valuation of consecrated land is performed by nine judges and, in addition, one priest. And the valuation of a person for the purpose of a vow is performed in a similar manner to that of land.",
+ "Cases of capital law are judged by twenty-three judges. An animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality are judged by twenty-three judges, as it is stated: “And if a woman approaches any animal to lie with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal” (Leviticus 20:16), and it states: “And if a man lies with an animal, he shall be put to death and you shall kill the animal” (Leviticus 20:15). In cases of bestiality, the verse juxtaposes the execution of the animal to the execution of the person, and therefore the case of the animal is adjudicated in the same way as cases of capital law. Similarly, an ox that is to be stoned because it killed a person is judged by twenty-three judges, as it is stated: “But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and warning has been given to its owner, but he did not guard it and it kills a man or a woman the ox shall be stoned and also its owner shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:29). From this verse it is derived that just as the manner of the death of the owner, so is the manner of the death of the ox. The same halakha applies in the case of a wolf or a lion, a bear or a leopard, or a cheetah, or a snake that killed a person: Their death is decreed by twenty-three judges. Rabbi Eliezer says these dangerous animals do not need to be brought to court; rather, anyone who kills them first merits the performance of a mitzva. Rabbi Akiva says: Their death is decreed by twenty-three judges.",
+ "The court judges cases involving an entire tribe that sinned, or a false prophet (see Deuteronomy 18:20–22), or a High Priest who transgressed a prohibition that carries a possible death sentence, only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges, i.e., the Great Sanhedrin. And the king may bring the nation out to an optional war, i.e., a war that was not mandated by the Torah and is not a war of defense, only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. They may extend the city of Jerusalem or the courtyards of the Temple only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. And they may appoint a lesser Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges for the tribes only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. A city may be designated as an idolatrous city, i.e., a city whose residents all practice idolatry, and therefore according to Torah law all the residents must be killed and the city must be destroyed (see Deuteronomy 13:13–19), only in accordance with the ruling of a court of seventy-one judges. Additionally, the court may not designate a city as an idolatrous city if it is on the frontier, close to the borders of Eretz Yisrael, and three adjoining cities may not be designated as idolatrous cities. But the court may designate one city, or two adjoining cities, as idolatrous cities.",
+ "With regard to the number of judges in the different courts the mishna presents a halakhic midrash: The Great Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one judges, and a lesser Sanhedrin was composed of twenty-three. From where is it derived that the Great Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one judges? As it is stated: “Gather Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel, whom you know to be the Elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them into the Tent of Meeting, and they shall stand there with you” (Numbers 11:16), and together with Moses at the head of this body, there are a total of seventy-one. Rabbi Yehuda says: Moses was indeed at the head of the body, but he is not counted as part of the group. Consequently, a future Great Sanhedrin modeled after these Elders is to be composed of seventy judges. And from where is it derived that a lesser Sanhedrin is composed of twenty-three judges? As it is stated: “And the congregation shall judge between the assailant and the avenger…and the congregation shall save the manslayer from the hands of the avenger” (Numbers 35:24–25). Therefore, there must be a congregation, which consists of at least ten judges, that judges the accused and attempts to convict him, and there must be a congregation, also consisting of at least ten judges, which attempts to save the accused by finding him innocent. Together, there are twenty judges here. Before proceeding to derive the requirement for the final three judges, the mishna clarifies: And from where is it derived that a congregation consists of at least ten men? As it is stated concerning the spies: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation that keep complaining about me?” (Numbers 14:27) There were twelve spies; excluding Joshua and Caleb, who did not complain, there would be ten men who are called: A congregation. Accordingly, the verses describing a congregation that attempts to convict the accused and a congregation that attempts to acquit him together add up to twenty judges. And from where is it derived to bring three more judges to the court? From the implication of that which is stated: “You shall not follow a multitude to convict” (Exodus 23:2), I would derive that I may not convict a person on the basis of a majority but I should follow the majority to exonerate. If so, why is it stated in the same verse: “To incline after a multitude,” from which it can be understood that the majority is followed in all cases? In order to resolve the apparent contradiction it must be explained: Your inclination after the majority to exonerate is not like your inclination after the majority to convict. Your inclination after the majority to exonerate can result in a verdict by a majority of one judge. But your inclination after the majority to convict a transgressor must be by a more decisive majority of at least two. Therefore, the court must have at least twenty-two judges. And since there is a principle that a court may not be composed of an even number of judges, as such a court may be unable to reach a decision, therefore they add another one to them, and there are twenty-three judges here. And how many men must be in the city for it to be eligible for a lesser Sanhedrin? One hundred and twenty. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Two hundred and thirty, corresponding to the ministers of tens, as outlined by Moses and Yitro in the wilderness (Exodus, chapter 18). That is to say, each member of the Sanhedrin can be viewed as a judge with responsibility for ten residents. If there are not enough men in the city to enable this calculation, it would not be honorable to appoint a Sanhedrin, as their members will each preside over less than the minimum of ten residents."
+ ],
+ [
+ "The High Priest judges others if he is sufficiently wise, and others judge him when he transgresses. He testifies before the court and others testify concerning him. He performs ḥalitza with his brother’s widow and his brother performs ḥalitza with his wife; and his brother consummates levirate marriage with his wife. But he does not consummate levirate marriage with his brother’s widow, because it is prohibited for him to marry a widow (see Leviticus 21:14), and can therefore never fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage, as a yevama is by definition a widow. If a relative of the High Priest dies, he does not follow the bier carrying the corpse, since it is prohibited for the High Priest to become ritually impure even for immediate relatives (see Leviticus 21:11). Rather, once the members of the funeral procession are concealed from sight by turning onto another street, he is revealed on the street they departed, and when they are revealed, then he is concealed, and in this way, he goes out with them until the entrance of the gate of the city, from where they would take out the corpse, since the dead were not buried in Jerusalem. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not emerge from the Temple at all for the burial of his relatives, as it is stated: “And from the Temple he shall not emerge and will not desecrate the Temple of his God; for the separateness of the oil of the anointment of his God is on him” (Leviticus 21:12). The mishna continues: And when he consoles others in their mourning when they return from burial, the way of all the people is that they pass by one after another and the mourners stand in a line and are consoled, and the appointed person stands in the middle, between the High Priest and the people. And when he is consoled by others in his mourning, all the people say to him: We are your atonement. And he says to them: May you be blessed from Heaven. And when they comfort him with the first meal after the burial of one of his relatives, all the people recline on the ground as if they are taking his mourning on themselves, and he reclines on the bench out of respect for his status as High Priest.",
+ "The mishna continues, enumerating the halakhot pertaining to the king in similar matters: The king does not judge others as a member of a court and others do not judge him, he does not testify and others do not testify concerning him, he does not perform ḥalitza with his brother’s widow and his brother does not perform ḥalitza with his wife, and he does not consummate levirate marriage with his brother’s widow and his brother does not consummate levirate marriage with his wife, as all these actions are not fitting to the honor of his office. Rabbi Yehuda says: These are not restrictions, but his prerogative: If he desired to perform ḥalitza or to consummate levirate marriage, he is remembered for good, as this is to the benefit of his brother’s widow. The Sages said to him: They do not listen to him if he desires to do so, as this affects not only his own honor but that of the kingdom. And no one may marry a king’s widow, due to his honor. Rabbi Yehuda says: Another king may marry the widow of a king, as we found that King David married the widow of King Saul, as it is stated: “And I have given you the house of your master and the wives of your master in your bosom” (II Samuel 12:8).",
+ "If a relative of the king dies, he does not emerge from the entrance of his palace [palterin], as it does not befit one of his stature to accompany the deceased. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he wishes to follow the bier, he follows it, as that is what we found with regard to King David, who followed the bier of Abner. As it is stated: “And King David followed the bier” (II Samuel 3:31). The Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda: The matter was only to appease the people, so that they should not suspect David of ordering Abner’s death. And when the people comfort the king with the meal of comfort, all the people recline on the ground, and he reclines on the dargash.",
+ "And the king brings out people for conscription in an optional war, i.e., a war that is not mandated by the Torah and is not a war of defense, on the basis of a court of seventy-one, and breaches fences of anyone in his way to create a pathway for himself for his various needs, and no one can protest his power. The pathway of the king has no measure, neither lengthwise nor widthwise, and one cannot protest that this pathway is wider than necessary. And all the people take spoils in war and give them to him, and he takes the first portion of the spoils. mishna The king “shall not add many wives for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17), but only eighteen. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may add many wives for himself, provided that they are not like those who turn his heart away from reverence for God. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he wants to marry only one wife, if she turns his heart away, he should not marry her. If so, why is it stated: “He shall not add many wives for himself”? This teaches that even if his wives are like Abigail, who was righteous and prevented David from sin (see I Samuel, chapter 25), it is prohibited for him to have many wives. The king “shall not accumulate many horses for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:16), but only enough for his chariot in war and in peace. “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17), but only enough to provide his soldiers’ sustenance [aspanya]. And the king writes himself a Torah scroll for his sake, as stipulated in Deuteronomy 17:18. When he goes out to war, he brings it out with him. When he comes in from war, he brings it in with him. When he sits in judgment, it is with him. When he reclines to eat, it is opposite him, as it is stated: “And it shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life” (Deuteronomy 17:19).",
+ "One may not ride on the king’s horse, and one may not sit on his throne, and one may not use his scepter, and one may not see him when he is having his hair cut, nor when he is naked, nor when he is in the bathhouse, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning, ensure that his fear should be upon you. All of these actions would lessen one’s fear of and reverence for the king."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Cases of monetary law are adjudicated by three. They are chosen in the following manner: This litigant chooses one for himself and that litigant chooses one for himself, and the two of them choose one more for themselves; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The two judges that were chosen choose one more judge for themselves. This litigant can disqualify the judge chosen by that litigant and that litigant can disqualify the judge chosen by this litigant; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: When can one of the litigants disqualify the judges? Only when he brings evidence about them that they are related to one of the litigants or to each other, or that they are disqualified from serving as judges for another reason. But if they are fit to serve as judges or are experts ordained by the court, he cannot disqualify them. This litigant can disqualify the witnesses of that litigant and that litigant can disqualify the witnesses of this litigant; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: When can one litigant disqualify the other’s witnesses? Only when he brings evidence about them that they are related to one of the litigants or to each other, or that they are disqualified from bearing witness for another reason. But if they are fit to serve as witnesses, he cannot disqualify them.",
+ "If one litigant says to the other: My father is trusted to adjudicate for me, or: Your father is trusted to adjudicate for me, or: Three cattle herders, who are not proficient in halakha, are trusted to adjudicate for me, all of whom are disqualified from serving as judges, Rabbi Meir says: The one who made the offer can retract it, and the Rabbis say: He cannot retract it, but must accept their verdict. Similarly, one who was obligated by Torah law to take an oath to another, which is done while grasping a sacred object, and the latter said to him: Instead of taking an oath, merely vow to me by the life of your head that what you claim is true, Rabbi Meir says: The one who made the offer can retract it, and demand that the other litigant take an oath, as he is obligated to do by Torah law. And the Rabbis say: He cannot retract his offer. Once he has agreed to accept a vow, which is of less severity than an oath, he cannot retract his agreement.",
+ "And these on the following list are the ones who are disqualified by the Sages from bearing witness due to their unseemly behavior, as they are considered wicked individuals guilty of monetary transgressions: One who plays with dice [bekubbiyya] for money, and one who lends money with interest, and those who fly pigeons, and merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, which may be eaten but may not be sold as an object of commerce. Rabbi Shimon said: Initially, people would call them: Gatherers of the produce of the Sabbatical Year. Once the tax collectors grew abundant they would then call them: Merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, as the Gemara will explain. Rabbi Yehuda said: When are the people listed above disqualified from bearing witness? It is when they have no occupation but this one. But if they have an occupation other than this one, although they also make money by these inappropriate means, they are fit to bear witness.",
+ "And these are the ones disqualified from bearing witness or from serving as judges due to their status as relatives of one of the litigants or of each other: One’s brother, and his paternal uncle, and his maternal uncle, and his sister’s husband, and the husband of his paternal aunt, and the husband of his maternal aunt, and his mother’s husband, and his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law, i.e., the husband of his wife’s sister. They themselves, all of these people, and also their sons, and their sons-in-law are considered relatives. And his stepson alone is disqualified, but not his stepson’s sons or sons-in-law. Rabbi Yosei says: This aforementioned halakha is Rabbi Akiva’s version of the mishna. But the initial version of the mishna reads as follows: His uncle and the son of his uncle, and anyone who is fit to inherit from him. Only paternal relatives, who are fit to inherit from him, are disqualified; maternal relatives, who do not inherit from him, are not disqualified from bearing witness about him or from adjudicating his case. And the halakha disqualifying a relative from bearing witness or serving as a judge is referring to anyone who is related to him at the time of the trial. If one was once a relative and became unrelated by the time of the trial, e.g., he married the daughter of one of the litigants, but she died or they were divorced, in this case he is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if his daughter died but her husband, the former son-in-law, has children from her, he is still considered a relative; the children cause them to remain related.",
+ "One who loves or one who hates one of the litigants is also disqualified. With regard to one who loves one of the litigants, this is referring to his groomsman. One who hates is referring to anyone who, out of enmity, did not speak with the litigant for three days. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: The Jewish people are not suspected of bearing false witness due to love or hate.",
+ "How do the judges examine the witnesses? They bring them into a room in the courthouse and intimidate them so that they will speak only the truth. And they take all the people, other than the judges, outside so that they should not tell the other witnesses the questions the judges ask and the answers the first witness gives, and they leave only the eldest of the witnesses to testify first. And they say to him: Say how exactly you know that this litigant owes money to that litigant, as the plaintiff claims. If he said: The defendant said to me: It is true that I owe the plaintiff, or if he says: So-and-so said to me that the defendant owes the plaintiff, the witness has said nothing and his testimony is disregarded. It is not valid testimony unless he says: The defendant admitted in our presence to the plaintiff that he owes him, e.g., two hundred dinars. By admitting to the debt in the presence of witnesses he renders himself liable to pay the amount that he mentioned. And afterward they bring in the second witness and examine him in the same manner. If their statements are found to be congruent the judges then discuss the matter. If the opinions of the judges are divided, as two judges say that the defendant is exempt from payment and one says he is liable to pay, he is exempt. If two say he is liable and one says he is exempt, he is liable. If one says he is liable and one says he is exempt, or even if two of the judges deem him exempt or two of them deem him liable, and the other one says: I do not know, the court must add more judges and then rule in accordance with the majority opinion. This is because the one who abstains is considered as though he is not a member of the court.",
+ "After the judges finish the matter and reach a decision, they bring in the litigants. The greatest of the judges says: So-and-so, you are exempt from paying; or: So-and-so, you are liable to pay. And from where is it derived that when the judge leaves the courtroom he may not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? About this it is stated: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13).",
+ "Any time one of the litigants brings additional proof, he can overturn the verdict that was decided according to previous proofs. If one litigant said to the other: Bring all the proofs that you have from now until thirty days from now, if he found additional proof within thirty days, he can overturn the verdict. If he found it after thirty days, he cannot overturn the verdict anymore. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: He can still overturn the verdict, as what should this litigant, who sought and did not find additional proof within thirty days but found it after thirty days, have done? In a case where one litigant said to the other: Bring witnesses, and the latter said: I have no witnesses, and the former said to him: Bring a proof, and he said: I have no proof, and he later brought a proof or found witnesses, in this case, this proof or these witnesses are worth nothing. It is apparently a false proof or false testimony. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: What should this litigant, who did not know that he has witnesses and ultimately found witnesses, or who did not know that he has a proof and ultimately found proof, have done? Therefore, he can still overturn the verdict. If at the beginning of the discussion in the court one did not bring witnesses or other evidence for his claims, but then he saw that he was about to be deemed liable to pay in the judgment, and said: Bring so-and-so and so-and-so, and they will testify on my behalf, or he pulled out a proof from under his belt [pundato], even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that this is worth nothing. If there was truth in the testimony of these witnesses or in this proof, he would not have hidden it until now."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Both cases of monetary law and cases of capital law are equal with regard to the requirement for inquiry and interrogation of the witnesses, as it is stated: “You shall have one manner of law” (Leviticus 24:22), meaning that all legal procedures must be uniform. Having stated the essential similarity between the two, the mishna enumerates the differences between them. What are the differences between cases of monetary law and cases of capital law? Cases of monetary law are judged by a court of three judges, and cases of capital law are judged by a court of twenty-three judges. In cases of monetary law, the court opens the deliberations either with a claim to exempt the accused, or with a claim to find him liable. And in cases of capital law, the court opens the deliberations with a claim to acquit the accused, but it does not open the deliberations with a claim to find him liable. In cases of monetary law, the court directs, i.e., issues, the ruling based on a majority of one judge, either to exempt, or to find liable. But in cases of capital law, the court directs the judgment based on a majority of one judge to acquit and based on a majority of two judges to find liable. In cases of monetary law, the court brings the accused back to be judged again if new evidence arises, either with a claim to exempt the accused, or with a claim to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court brings the accused back to be judged again with a claim to acquit him, but the court does not bring him back to be judged with a claim to find him liable. In cases of monetary law, all those present at the trial may teach a reason to exempt a litigant or to find him liable. In cases of capital law, all those present at the trial may teach a reason to acquit the accused, but not all present may teach a reason to find him liable. Only the judges can teach a reason to find him liable. In cases of monetary law, one who initially teaches a reason to find the accused liable may then teach a reason to exempt him, and one who initially teaches a reason to exempt him may then teach a reason to find him liable. In cases of capital law, one who initially teaches a reason to find him liable may then teach a reason to acquit, but one who initially teaches a reason to acquit may not return and teach a reason to find him liable. In cases of monetary law, the court judges during the daytime, and may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even at night. In cases of capital law, the court judges during the daytime, and concludes the deliberations and issues the ruling only in the daytime. In cases of monetary law, the court may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even on that same day, whether to exempt the accused or to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even on that same day to acquit the accused, but must wait until the following day to find him liable. Therefore, since capital cases might continue for two days, the court does not judge cases of capital law on certain days, neither on the eve of Shabbat nor the eve of a Festival.",
+ "In cases of monetary law, and likewise in the cases of ritual impurity and purity, the judges commence expressing their opinions from the greatest of the judges. In cases of capital law, the judges commence issuing their opinions from the side, where the least significant judges sit. All are fit to judge cases of monetary law. But not all are fit to judge cases of capital law; only priests, Levites, and Israelites who are of sufficiently fit lineage to marry their daughters to members of the priesthood are fit to judge cases of capital law.",
+ "A Sanhedrin of twenty-three was arranged in the same layout as half of a circular threshing floor, in order that all the judges will see one another and the witnesses. And two judges’ scribes stand before the court, one on the right and one on the left, and they write the statements of those who find the accused liable and the statements of those who acquit the accused. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were three scribes. One writes only the statements of those who acquit the accused, one writes only the statements of those who find him liable, and the third writes both the statements of those who acquit the accused and the statements of those who find him liable, so that if there is uncertainty concerning the precise wording that one of the scribes writes, it can be compared to the words of the third scribe.",
+ "And three rows of Torah scholars sit before the judges, and each and every one among those sitting recognizes his place, i.e., they are seated in accordance with their stature. When the court must ordain an additional judge, e.g., if a judge dies during the proceedings or in the case of a court without a decisive majority (see 40a), the court ordains the greatest Torah scholar from the first row. As a seat in the first row is now vacant, one Torah scholar from the second row comes to the first row, and one Torah scholar from the third row comes to the second row, and the court selects another Torah scholar from among the assembled and they seat him in the third row. And this Torah scholar who moves from the second row to the first row would not sit in the place of the first Torah scholar, who joined the court, rather, he would sit in the place appropriate for him, i.e., at the end of that row, in accordance with his stature.",
+ "How does the court intimidate the witnesses in giving testimony for cases of capital law? They would bring the witnesses in and intimidate them by saying to them: Perhaps what you say in your testimony is based on conjecture, or perhaps it is based on a rumor, perhaps it is testimony based on hearsay, e.g., you heard a witness testify to this in a different court, or perhaps it is based on the statement of a trusted person. Perhaps you do not know that ultimately we examine you with inquiry and interrogation, and if you are lying, your lie will be discovered. The court tells them: You should know that cases of capital law are not like cases of monetary law. In cases of monetary law, a person who testifies falsely, causing money to be given to the wrong party, can give the money to the proper owner and his sin is atoned for. In cases of capital law, if one testifies falsely, the blood of the accused and the blood of his offspring that he did not merit to produce are ascribed to the witness’s testimony until eternity. The proof for this is as we found with Cain, who killed his brother, as it is stated concerning him: “The voice of your brother’s blood [demei] cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10). The verse does not state: Your brother’s blood [dam], in the singular, but rather: “Your brother’s blood [demei],” in the plural. This serves to teach that the loss of both his brother’s blood and the blood of his brother’s offspring are ascribed to Cain. The mishna notes: Alternatively, the phrase “your brother’s blood [demei],” written in the plural, teaches that that his blood was not gathered in one place but was splattered on the trees and on the stones. The court tells the witnesses: Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone, to teach you that with regard to anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, i.e., kills one Jew, the verse ascribes him blame as if he destroyed an entire world, as Adam was one person, from whom the population of an entire world came forth. And conversely, anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sustained an entire world. The mishna cites another reason Adam the first man was created alone: And this was done due to the importance of maintaining peace among people, so that one person will not say to another: My father, i.e., progenitor, is greater than your father. And it was also so that the heretics who believe in multiple gods will not say: There are many authorities in Heaven, and each created a different person. And this serves to tell of the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as when a person stamps several coins with one seal, they are all similar to each other. But the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, stamped all people with the seal of Adam the first man, as all of them are his offspring, and not one of them is similar to another. Therefore, since all humanity descends from one person, each and every person is obligated to say: The world was created for me, as one person can be the source of all humanity, and recognize the significance of his actions. The court says to the witnesses: And perhaps you will say: Why would we want this trouble? Perhaps it would be better not to testify at all. But be aware, as is it not already stated: “And he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1)? It is a transgression not to testify when one can do so. And perhaps you will say: Why would we want to be responsible for the blood of this person? But be aware, as is it not already stated: “When the wicked perish, there is song” (Proverbs 11:10)?"
+ ],
+ [
+ "The court would examine the witnesses in capital cases with seven interrogations, i.e., interrogatory questions, and they are: In which seven-year period, that is, in which cycle of seven years within a jubilee did the event occur; in which year of the Sabbatical cycle did the event occur; in which month did the event occur; on which day of the month did the event occur; on which day of the week did the event occur; at which hour did the event occur; and in what place did the event occur. Rabbi Yosei says: The court would examine the witnesses with only three interrogations: On which day did the event occur, at which hour, and in what place. They would also ask: Do you recognize him as the man who committed the transgression? Did you warn him? They would then ask the witnesses about the particulars of the incident. For example, in the case of one who is an accused idol worshipper, they ask the witnesses: Whom, i.e., which idol, did he worship, and in what manner did he worship it, and so on.",
+ "With regard to all judges who increase the number of examinations, i.e., who add questions about the details of the event, this is praiseworthy, as this may clarify that the witnesses are lying. An incident occurred and ben Zakkai examined the witnesses by questioning them about the color and shape of the stems of figs in order to unearth a contradiction between the witnesses. The mishna explains: What is the difference between interrogations and examinations? With regard to interrogations, if one of the witnesses says: I do not know the answer, their testimony is void immediately. With regard to examinations, if one says: I do not know the answer, and even if two say: We do not know the answer, their testimony still stands. Both with regard to interrogations and examinations, at a time when the witnesses contradict one another, their testimony is void.",
+ "The mishna clarifies: If one witness says the event occurred on the second of the month, and one witness says that the event occurred on the third of the month, this is not regarded as a contradiction and their testimony stands, since it is possible to say that this witness knows of the addition of a day to the previous month, and according to his tally the event occurred on the second of the month, and that witness does not know of the addition of a day to the previous month, and according to his tally the event occurred on the third of the month. Their testimony is not considered incongruent. By contrast, if this witness says the event occurred on the third of the month and one witness says the event occurred on the fifth of the month, their testimony is void, as this disparity cannot be attributed to a mere error. Therefore, their testimony is not congruent. Similarly, if one witness says that the event occurred at two hours, i.e., the second hour of the day from sunrise, and one witness says that the event occurred at three hours, their testimony stands, as one could reasonably err this amount in estimating the hour of the day. By contrast, if one says that the event occurred at three hours, and one says that the event occurred at five hours, their testimony is void. Rabbi Yehuda says: Also in this case their testimony stands, as one could reasonably err concerning even this length of time. Rabbi Yehuda adds: But if one says that the event occurred at five hours, and one says that the event occurred at seven hours, their testimony is void. Here the difference is recognizable to all, since at five hours the sun is in the east and at seven the sun is in the west, and one could not err concerning this. Therefore, their testimony is not congruent.",
+ "The mishna continues: And afterward, after the court examines the first witness, they bring in the second witness and examine him. If the statements of the witnesses are found to be congruent, the court begins to deliberate the matter. They open the deliberations with an appeal to anyone who can find a reason to acquit the accused. If one of the witnesses said: I can teach a reason to acquit him, or if one of the students sitting before the judges said: I can teach a reason to deem him liable, the judges silence him, i.e., both the witness and the student. The reason is that these people are not allowed to offer information such as this. But if one of the students said: I can to teach a reason to acquit him, they raise him to the seat of the court and seat him among them, and he would not descend from there the entire day, but would sit and participate in their deliberations. If the statement of that student has substance, the court listens to him. And if even the accused says: I can teach a reason to acquit me, the court listens to him and considers his statement, provided that his statement has substance.",
+ "And if the court found it fit to acquit him during the deliberations, as all or a majority of the judges agreed to acquit him, they excuse him. But if a majority does not find it fit to acquit him, they delay his verdict to the following day, and they then assign pairs of judges to discuss the matter with each other. They would minimize their food intake and they would not drink wine all day. And they would deliberate all night, and the following day they would arise early and come to court and then vote again and tally the votes of the judges. One who yesterday was of the opinion to acquit the defendant says: I said to acquit, and I acquit in my place, i.e., I stand by my statement to acquit. And one who yesterday was of the opinion to deem him liable says: I said to deem him liable, and I deem him liable in my place. One who yesterday taught a reason to deem him liable may then teach a reason to acquit, but one who yesterday taught a reason to acquit may not then teach a reason to deem him liable. If they erred in the matter, as one of the judges forgot what he had said the previous day, two judges’ scribes, who recorded the statements of the judges, remind him. If the court then found it fit to acquit him unanimously, they excuse him, and if not all of the judges determine to acquit, they stand to count the vote. If twelve judges vote to acquit him and eleven judges deem him liable, he is acquitted. The mishna continues: In a case where twelve judges deem him liable and eleven judges acquit; or even if eleven judges acquit and eleven deem him liable and one judge says: I do not know; or even if twenty-two judges acquit or deem him liable and one judge says: I do not know, the judge who said he does not know is disregarded, and the judges add additional judges to the court until they reach a definitive ruling. And how many judges do they add? They add pairs of two judges each time they do not reach a ruling until there are seventy-one judges, but no more than that. At that point, if thirty-six judges acquit and thirty-five judges deem him liable, he is acquitted. If thirty-six judges deem him liable and thirty-five judges acquit, they continue to deliberate the matter, these judges against those judges, until one of those who deems him liable sees the validity of the statements of those who acquit and changes his position, as the court does not condemn a defendant to death by a majority of one judge."
+ ],
+ [
+ "When the trial has ended in a guilty verdict and the condemned man has been sentenced to be stoned, he is taken out to be stoned. The place of stoning was outside the court and a little beyond it, as it is stated with regard to a blasphemer: “Take out him who has cursed to outside the camp, and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him” (Leviticus 24:14). One man stands at the entrance to the court, with cloths [vehasudarin] in his hand, and another man sits on a horse at a distance from him but where he can still see him. If one of the judges says: I can teach a reason to acquit him, the other, i.e., the man with the cloths, waves the cloths as a signal to the man on the horse, and the horse races off after the court agents who are leading the condemned man to his execution, and he stops them, and they wait until the court determines whether or not the argument has substance. And even if he, the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse, even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words. If, after the condemned man is returned to the courthouse, the judges find a reason to acquit him, they acquit him and release him immediately. But if they do not find a reason to acquit him, he goes out to be stoned. And a crier goes out before him and publicly proclaims: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going out to be stoned because he committed such and such a transgression. And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf.",
+ "When the condemned man is at a distance of about ten cubits from the place of stoning, they say to him: Confess your transgressions, as the way of all who are being executed is to confess. As whoever confesses and regrets his transgressions has a portion in the World-to-Come. For so we find with regard to Achan, that Joshua said to him: “My son, please give glory to the Lord, God of Israel, and make confession to Him” (Joshua 7:19). And the next verse states: “And Achan answered Joshua, and said: Indeed I have sinned against the Lord, God of Israel, and like this and like that have I done.” And from where is it derived that Achan’s confession achieved atonement for him? It is derived from here, as it is stated: “And Joshua said: Why have you brought trouble on us? The Lord shall trouble you this day” (Joshua 7:25). Joshua said to Achan as follows: On this day of your judgment you are troubled, but you will not be troubled in the World-to-Come. And if the condemned man does not know how to confess, either from ignorance or out of confusion, they say to him: Say simply: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the condemned man knows that he was convicted by the testimony of conspiring witnesses, but in fact he is innocent, he says: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins except for this sin. The Sages who disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda said to him: If so, every person who is being executed will say that, to clear himself in the eyes of the public. Therefore, if the condemned man does not make such a statement on his own, the court does not suggest it to him as an alternative.",
+ "When the condemned man is at a distance of four cubits from the place of stoning, they take off his clothes. They cover a man’s genitals in the front, and a woman is covered both in the front and in the back; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Rabbis say: A man is stoned naked, i.e., wearing only that cloth covering, but a woman is not stoned naked, but is stoned while clothed.",
+ "The place of stoning from which the condemned man is pushed to his death is a platform twice the height of an ordinary person. He is made to stand at the edge of the platform, and then one of the witnesses who testified against him pushes him down by the hips, so that he falls face up onto the ground. If he turned over onto his chest, with his face downward, the witness turns him over onto his hips. And if he dies through this fall to the ground, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled. And if the condemned man does not die from his fall, the second witness takes the stone that has been prepared for this task and places, i.e., casts, it on his chest. And if he dies with the casting of this first stone, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled. And if he does not die with the casting of this stone, then his stoning is completed by all of the Jewish people, i.e., by all the people who assembled for the execution, as it is stated: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people” (Deuteronomy 17:7). The corpses of all those who are stoned are hung after their death; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: Only the corpse of the blasphemer, who has cursed God, and the corpse of the idol worshipper are hung. The corpse of a man is hung facing the people, but the corpse of a woman, out of modesty, is hung with facing the tree; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: the corpse of a man is hung, but the corpse of a woman is not hung. Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Did Shimon ben Shataḥ not hang in Ashkelon women who were found guilty of witchcraft, proving that the corpse of a woman who is executed is also hung? They said to him: No proof can be brought from here, as he hanged eighty women on that day, and the halakha is that the same court may not judge even two people charged with capital transgressions on the same day. It is therefore clear that he was not acting in accordance with Torah law, but rather his execution of the eighty women was an extraordinary punishment necessitated by unusually pressing circumstances. How do they hang the corpse of one who was put to death by stoning? They sink a post into the earth with a piece of wood jutting out, forming a T-shaped structure. And the court appointee then places the dead man’s two hands one upon the other, ties them, and hangs him by his hands. Rabbi Yosei says: The post is not sunk into the ground; rather, it leans against a wall, and he hangs the corpse on it the way that butchers do with meat. The dead man hangs there for only a very short time, and then they immediately untie him. And if he was left hanging overnight, a prohibition is transgressed, as it is stated: “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him that day, for he that is hung is a curse of God” (Deuteronomy 21:23). That is to say: Were the corpse left hanging on the tree overnight, people would ask: For what reason was this one hung after he was put to death? They would be answered: Because he blessed God, a euphemism for blasphemy. And therefore the name of Heaven would be desecrated were the dead man’s corpse to remain hanging, reminding everybody of his transgression.",
+ "Rabbi Meir said: The phrase “for he that is hung is a curse [kilelat] of God” should be understood as follows: When a man suffers in the wake of his sin, what expression does the Divine Presence use? I am distressed [kallani] about My head, I am distressed about My arm, meaning, I, too, suffer when the wicked are punished. From here it is derived: If God suffers such distress over the blood of the wicked that is spilled, even though they justly deserved their punishment, it can be inferred a fortiori that He suffers distress over the blood of the righteous. And the Sages said not only this, that an executed transgressor must be buried on the same day that he is killed, but they said that anyone who leaves his deceased relative overnight with-out burying him transgresses a prohibition. But if he left the deceased overnight for the sake of the deceased’s honor, e.g., to bring a coffin or shrouds for his burial, he does not transgress the prohibition against leaving him unburied overnight. After the executed transgressor is taken down he is buried, and they would not bury him in his ancestral burial plot. Rather, two graveyards were established for the burial of those executed by the court: One for those who were killed by decapitation or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned. ",
+ "Once the flesh of the deceased had decomposed, they would gather his bones and bury them in their proper place in his ancestral burial plot. And soon after the execution, the relatives of the executed transgressor would come and inquire about the welfare of the judges and about the welfare of the witnesses, as if to say: We hold no grudges against you, as you judged a true judgment. And the relatives of the executed man would not mourn him with the observance of the usual mourning rites, so that his unmourned death would atone for his transgression; but they would grieve over his passing, since grief is felt only in the heart."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Four types of the death penalty were given over to the court, with which those who committed certain transgressions are executed. They are, in descending order of severity: Stoning, burning, killing by decapitation, and strangulation. Rabbi Shimon says: They are, in descending order of severity: Burning, stoning, strangulation, and killing. This execution, described in the previous chapter, is referring to the mitzva of those who are stoned, i.e., to the process of execution by stoning.",
+ "The mitzva of those who are burned, i.e., the process of execution by burning, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and they place a rough scarf within a soft one, so his throat will not be wounded, and wrap these scarves around his neck. This one, i.e., one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward himself, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward himself, until the condemned one is forced to open his mouth, as he is choking. And another person then lights the wick and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies. Rabbi Yehuda says: But if this one who is condemned to death by burning accidentally died at their hands by strangulation, they have not fulfilled the mitzva of execution by burning for this person. Rather, the process is carried out in the following manner: One opens the mouth of the condemned person with prongs, against his will, and one lights the wick and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies. Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok said: An incident occurred with regard to a certain priest’s daughter who committed adultery, and they wrapped her in bundles of branches and burned her, contrary to the process described in the mishna. The Sages said to him: That court did not act properly; they did so because the court at that time was not proficient in halakha.",
+ "The mitzva of those who are killed, i.e., the process of execution by decapitation, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners cut off his head with a sword, the way that the monarchy does when a king sentences a person to death. Rabbi Yehuda says: This manner of execution is improper, as it degrades him. Rather, they place the head of the condemned on the block, and chop it off with a cleaver [bekofitz]. The Rabbis said to him: If you are concerned about his degradation, there is no death penalty more degrading than that. It is better for him to be executed in the manner described first. The mitzva of those who are strangled is carried out in the following manner: The agents of the court submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and one of them places a rough scarf within a soft one, and wraps it around his neck. This one, i.e., one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward him, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward him, until the soul of the condemned one departs.",
+ "These transgressors are those who are stoned to death: One who engages in intercourse with his mother; or with his father’s wife, even if she is not his mother; or with his daughter-in-law; or with a male; or with an animal; and a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal. And one who blasphemes, and one who engages in idol worship. And one who gives of his offspring to Molekh, and a necromancer, and a sorcerer. And one who desecrates Shabbat, and one who curses his father or his mother, and one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, and an inciter who incites individuals to idol worship, and a subverter who incites an entire city to idol worship, and a warlock, and a stubborn and rebellious son. The mishna elaborates: One who unwittingly engages in intercourse with his mother who is also his father’s wife is liable to bring two sin-offerings for his intercourse with her: One due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s mother and one due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s father’s wife. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable to bring only one sin-offering, due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s mother. One who unwittingly engages in intercourse with his father’s wife while his father is married to her is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s father’s wife and one due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a married woman. He is liable due to the former prohibition both during his father’s lifetime and after his father’s death, and whether the relationship between the woman and his father is one of betrothal or one of marriage. Likewise, one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with his daughter-in-law during his son’s lifetime is liable to bring two sin-offerings for his intercourse with her: One due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s daughter-in-law, and one due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a married woman. The former liability applies both during his son’s lifetime and after his son’s death, and whether the relationship between the woman and his son is one of betrothal or one of marriage. A man who engages in intercourse with a male or with an animal, and a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal, are executed by stoning. The animal is likewise stoned to death. The mishna asks: If the person sinned by doing this, how did the animal sin? Rather, because a calamity was caused to a person by it, therefore the verse states that it should be stoned, so that it does not cause another to sin. Alternatively, it is so that this animal will not pass through the marketplace, and those who see it will say: This is the animal because of which so-and-so was stoned, and its existence would shame his memory.",
+ "One who blasphemes, i.e., one who curses God, is not liable unless he utters the name of God and curses it. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: On every day of a blasphemer’s trial, when the judges judge the witnesses, i.e., interrogate the witnesses, they ask the witnesses to use an appellation for the name of God, so that they do not utter a curse of God’s name. Specifically, the witnesses would say: Let Yosei smite Yosei, as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, as does the Tetragrammaton. When the judgment is over, and the court votes to deem the defendant guilty, they do not sentence him to death based on the testimony of the witnesses in which they used an appellation for the name of God, without having ever heard the exact wording of the curse. Rather, they remove all the people who are not required to be there from the court, so that the curse is not heard publicly, and the judges interrogate the eldest of the witnesses, and say to him: Say what you heard explicitly. And he says exactly what he heard. And the judges stand on their feet and make a tear in their garments, as an act of mourning for the desecration of the honor of God. And they do not ever fully stitch it back together again. And the second witness says: I too heard as he did, but he does not repeat the curse explicitly. And the third witness, in the event that there is one, says: I too heard as he did. In this manner, the repetition of the invective sentence is limited to what is absolutely necessary.",
+ "One who worships idols is executed by stoning. This includes one who worships an idol, and one who slaughters an animal as an idolatrous offering, and one who burns incense as an idolatrous offering, and one who pours a libation in idol worship, and one who bows to an idol, and one who declares that he accepts an idol upon himself as a god, and one who says to an idol: You are my god. But with regard to one who hugs an idol, or one who kisses it, or one who cleans it, or one who sprays water before it, or one who washes it, or one who rubs it with oil, or one who dresses it, or one who puts its shoes on it, he transgresses a prohibition but is not liable to receive capital punishment. With regard to one who vows in an idol’s name and one who affirms his statement by an oath in its name, he transgresses a prohibition. One who defecates before the idol known as Ba’al-Peor is liable to receive capital punishment, even though defecating is a degrading act, as that is its form of worship. Likewise, one who throws a stone at Mercury is liable to receive capital punishment, as that is its form of worship.",
+ "One who gives of his offspring to Molekh, for which one is executed by stoning, is not liable unless he hands over his child to the priests of Molekh and passes the child through the fire. If he handed over the child to the priests of Molekh but did not pass him through the fire, or if he passed him through the fire but did not hand him over to the priests of Molekh, he is not liable, unless he hands the child over to the priests of Molekh and passes him through the fire. The list of those liable to be executed by stoning includes those who practice various types of sorcery. The mishna describes them: A necromancer is a pitom from whose armpit the voice of the dead appears to speak. And a sorcerer is one from whose mouth the dead appears to speak. These, the necromancer and the sorcerer, are executed by stoning, and one who inquires about the future through them is in violation of a prohibition.",
+ "Also liable to be executed by stoning is one who desecrates Shabbat by performing a matter that for its intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for its unwitting performance one is obligated to bring a sin-offering. One who curses his father or his mother is not liable to be executed by stoning unless he curses them with the name of God. If he cursed them with an appellation of the name of God, Rabbi Meir deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.",
+ "One who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman is not liable to be executed by stoning unless she is a young woman, i.e., neither a minor nor an adult; a virgin; betrothed but not yet married; and she lives in her father’s home, having yet to move in with her husband. If two men engaged in intercourse with her, the first is liable to be executed by stoning, and the second is liable to be executed by strangulation. The second man is executed in this manner in accordance with the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with a married or non-virgin betrothed woman, as she was no longer a virgin when he engaged in intercourse with her.",
+ "With regard to the case of an inciter, listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is an ordinary person, not a prophet. And it is referring to one who incites an ordinary person and not a multitude of people. What does the inciter do? He says: There is an idol in such and such a place, which eats like this, drinks like this, does good for its worshippers like this, and harms those who do not worship it like this. The mishna states a principle with regard to the halakha of an inciter: With regard to all of those mentioned in the Torah who are liable to receive the death penalty, if there are no witnesses to their transgressions, the court does not hide witnesses in order to ensnare and punish them, except for this case of an inciter. The mishna elaborates: If the inciter said his words of incitement to two men, they are his witnesses, and he does not need to be warned before the transgression; they bring him to court and stone him. If he said his words of incitement to one man alone, that man’s testimony would not be sufficient to have the inciter executed. Therefore he says to the inciter: I have friends who are interested in this; tell them too. This way there will be more witnesses. The mishna continues: If the inciter is cunning, and he knows that he cannot speak in front of two men, the court hides witnesses for him behind the fence so that he will not see them, and the man whom the inciter had previously tried to incite says to him: Say what you said to me when we were in seclusion. And the other person, the inciter, says to him again that he should worship the idol. And he says to the inciter: How can we forsake our God in Heaven and go and worship wood and stones? If the inciter retracts his suggestion, that is good. But if he says: This idol worship is our duty; this is what suits us, then those standing behind the fence bring him to court and have him stoned. The halakha of an inciter includes one who says: I shall worship idols, or one of the following statements: I shall go and worship idols, or: let us go and worship idols, or: I shall sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: I shall go and sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: Let us go and sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: I shall burn incense as an idolatrous offering, or: I shall go and burn incense, or: Let us go and burn incense, or: I shall pour an idolatrous libation, or: I shall go and pour a libation, or: Let us go and pour a libation, or: I shall bow to an idol, or: I shall go and bow, or: Let us go and bow. With regard to the case of the subverter listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is one who says to a multitude of people: Let us go and worship idols.",
+ "The warlock is also liable to be executed by stoning. One who performs a real act of sorcery is liable, but not one who deceives the eyes, making it appear as though he is performing sorcery, as that is not considered sorcery. Rabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: For example, two people can each gather cucumbers by sorcery. One of them gathers cucumbers and he is exempt, and the other one gathers cucumbers and he is liable. How so? The one who performs a real act of sorcery is liable, and the one who deceives the eyes is exempt."
+ ],
+ [
+ "The Torah describes the punishment given to a son who steals money from his parents to eat a gluttonous meal of meat and wine in the company of lowly men. If his parents bring him to court for this act, he is exhorted to desist and is punished with lashes. If he repeats the same misdeed and is again brought to court by his parents within the same three-month period, he is considered a stubborn and rebellious son [ben sorer umoreh]. He is liable to receive the death penalty, which in this case is execution by stoning. From when does a stubborn and rebellious son become liable to receive the death penalty imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son? From when he grows two pubic hairs, which are a sign of puberty and from which time he is considered an adult, until he has grown a beard around. The reference here is to the lower beard surrounding his genitals, and not the upper beard, i.e., his facial hair, but the Sages spoke in euphemistic terms. As it is stated: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son” (Deuteronomy 21:18), which indicates that the penalty for rebelliousness is imposed upon a son, but not upon a daughter; and upon a son, but not upon a fully grown man. A minor under the age of thirteen is exempt from the penalty imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son, because he has not yet reached the age of inclusion in mitzvot.",
+ "From when is a stubborn and rebellious son liable? From when he eats a tarteimar of meat and drinks a half-log of Italian wine. Rabbi Yosei says: From when he eats a maneh of meat and drinks a log of wine. The mishna now lists a series of conditions concerning his eating and drinking. If he ate these items with a group assembled for the performance of a mitzva, or he ate them at a meal celebrating the intercalation of a month, or he ate the items when they had second tithe status, in Jerusalem, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son because each of these circumstances involves some aspect of a mitzva. If he ate the meat of unslaughtered animal carcasses or animals that had wounds that would have caused them to die within twelve months [tereifot] or repugnant creatures or creeping animals, or he ate untithed produce from which tithes and terumot were not separated, or first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, or second tithe outside Jerusalem or consecrated food that was not redeemed, each of which involves a transgression, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. The mishna summarizes: If he ate an item that involves performing a mitzva or an item that involves committing a transgression, or if he ate any food in the world but did not eat meat, or if he drank any beverage but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he actually eats meat and actually drinks wine, as it is stated: “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he does not listen to our voice; he…is a glutton [zolel] and a drunkard [vesovei]” (Deuteronomy 21:20). One is not called a glutton and a drunkard unless he eats meat and drinks wine. And although there is no explicit proof to the matter that the reference in the Torah is to meat and wine, there is an allusion to the matter in another verse, as it is stated: “Be not among wine drinkers [besovei], among gluttonous eaters [bezolelei] of meat” (Proverbs 23:20).",
+ "If he stole that which belonged to his father and ate on his father’s property, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on the property of others, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on his father’s property, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he steals that which belonged to his father and eats on the property of others. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he steals that which belonged to his father and that which belonged to his mother.",
+ "If his father wishes to have him punished but his mother does not wish that, or if his father does not wish to have him punished but his mother wishes that, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless they both wish that he be punished. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not suited for his father, the two being an inappropriate match, as the Gemara will explain, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. If one of the parents was without hands, or lame, or mute, or blind, or deaf, their son does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, as it is stated: “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him, and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place. And they shall say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deuteronomy 21:19–20). The Sages derive: “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him,” but not people without hands, who cannot do this. “And bring him out,” but not lame people, who cannot walk. “And they shall say,” but not mutes. “This son of ours,” but not blind people, who cannot point to their son and say “this.” “He will not obey our voices,” but not deaf people, who cannot hear whether or not he declined to obey them. After he is brought before the elders of the city, he is admonished before three people and then they flog him for having stolen. If he sins again, he is judged by a court of twenty-three judges, but he is not stoned unless the first three judges before whom he had been flogged are present there, as it is stated: “This son of ours,” this is the son who was already flogged before you. If the rebellious son ran away before he was sentenced, and afterward, before he was caught, his lower beard grew around, he is exempt from the death penalty. Once his lower beard grows around his genitals, he can no longer be judged as a stubborn and rebellious son. But if he ran away only after he was sentenced, and afterward, by the time he was caught, his lower beard had already grown around, he is liable to receive the death penalty. Once he is sentenced to death his sentence remains in force.",
+ "A stubborn and rebellious son is sentenced to death not because of the severity of the transgression that he already committed but on account of his ultimate end, because a boy of his nature will grow up to lead an immoral life, and it is better that he should die while he is still innocent, before causing excessive harm, and not die after he becomes guilty. This is because the death of the wicked is beneficial to them, because they can no longer sin, and it is also beneficial to the world, which is now rid of those who do it harm. Conversely, the death of the righteous is detrimental to them, as they can no longer engage in the performance of mitzvot, and it is also detrimental to the world, as the righteous are now absent from it. By way of association, the mishna continues: The wine and sleep of the wicked are beneficial to them and beneficial to the world, as when they are sleeping or under the influence of wine, they do not cause harm to others. And, conversely, the wine and sleep of the righteous are detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, as wine and sleep prevent them from engaging in their good deeds. The dispersal of the wicked, so that they are not found in close proximity to each other, is beneficial to them, as they are less likely to provoke each other to sin, and it is beneficial to the world. The dispersal of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world. The assembly of the wicked in one place is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, while the assembly of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world. The tranquility of the wicked is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, while the tranquility of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world.",
+ "A burglar who is found breaking into a house may be killed by the owner of the house with impunity (see Exodus 22:1). He too is sentenced on account of his ultimate end, as it is presumed that if the owner of the house would resist the burglar, the burglar would kill the owner of the house. If the burglar was breaking into a house, and in the course of doing so he broke a barrel, if there is blood-guiltiness for killing him, i.e., if the homeowner would be liable for killing him, the burglar is liable to pay for the value of the barrel. An example of this is if a father broke into his son’s house, in which case it is presumed that even if the son resists his father, his father would never kill him, and therefore the son may not kill his father, and if he does so he is liable. If there is no blood-guiltiness for killing him, i.e., if the homeowner would be exempt from punishment for killing him, the burglar is exempt from paying for the barrel.",
+ "And these are the ones who are saved from transgressing even at the cost of their lives; that is to say, these people may be killed so that they do not perform a transgression: One who pursues another to kill him, or pursues a male to sodomize him, or pursues a betrothed young woman to rape her. But with regard to one who pursues an animal to sodomize it, or one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat, or one who is going to engage in idol worship, they are not saved at the cost of their lives. Rather, they are forewarned not to transgress, and if they proceed to transgress after having been forewarned, they are brought to trial, and if they are found guilty, they are executed."
+ ],
+ [
+ "And these are the transgressors who are burned in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who engaged in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, and one who is the daughter of a priest and who committed adultery. Included in the category of the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter and the resulting execution by burning, there are: His daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, and the daughter of his son. Likewise, the following are also included in this category: Intercourse with the daughter of his wife, even though she is not his daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, as well as intercourse with his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The prohibition and punishment apply both in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her daughter, and in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her mother. And these are the transgressors who are killed by decapitation in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: The murderer; and the residents of an idolatrous city, all of whom engaged in idol worship. The mishna elaborates: In the case of a murderer who struck another with a stone or with iron, or held him in the water or in the fire, and the victim could not extricate himself from there and he died,the murderer is liable to be executed. If one pushed another into the water or into the fire and that person could have extricated himself from there but failed to do so, and he died, the one who pushed him is exempt from punishment by a court, as he caused the death but did not actually kill the victim. For the same reason, if one set a dog against another and the dog killed him, or if one set a snake against another and the snake killed him, the one who set the dog or the snake is exempt from punishment. If he imbedded the snake’s fangs into another and caused the snake to bite him and kill him, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to be executed, as he is a murderer, and the Rabbis exempt him, as they maintain that he indirectly caused the individual’s death. In the case of one who strikes another, whether he does so with a stone or with his fist, and the doctors assessed his condition, estimating that it would lead to death, and then his condition eased from what it was, and the doctors revised their prognosis and predicted that he would live, and thereafter his condition worsened and he died, the assailant is liable to be executed as a murderer. Rabbi Neḥemya says: He is exempt, as there is a basis for the matter of assuming that he is not liable. Since the victim’s condition eased in the interim, a cause other than the blow struck by the assailant ultimately caused his death. ",
+ "If one intended to kill an animal, and he killed a person standing adjacent to it, or if he intended to kill a gentile, for whose murder he is not liable to be executed in court, and he killed a Jew, or if he intended to kill non-viable newborns, for whose murder one is not liable, and he killed a viable person, the assailant is exempt from execution, since his intent was to kill one for whose murder he is not liable. If one intended to strike another on his loins, and the blow was not powerful enough to kill him if it were to land on his loins, but instead the blow landed on his chest over the victim’s heart, and it was powerful enough to kill him when it landed on his chest over his heart, and the victim died as a result of the blow, the assailant is exempt from execution, as he did not intend to strike the victim a blow that would cause his death. If he intended to strike him on his chest over his heart and the blow was powerful enough to kill him were it to land on his chest over his heart, and instead the blow landed on his loins, and it was not powerful enough to kill him when it landed on his loins, and nevertheless the victim died, the assailant is exempt. Although the assailant intended to kill the victim, the blow was not powerful enough to kill. Ostensibly, his death was not a result of the blow. If one intended to kill an adult and the blow was not powerful enough to kill the adult, and instead the blow landed on a minor, and the blow was powerful enough to kill the minor and the minor died, the assailant is exempt. If one intended to kill a minor and the blow was powerful enough to kill a minor, and the blow landed on an adult and the blow was not powerful enough to kill the adult, and nevertheless, the adult died, the assailant is exempt. But if one intended to strike another on his loins, and the blow was powerful enough to kill him were it to land on his loins, and instead the blow landed on his chest over his heart, and he died, the assailant is liable, since in any event, his intent was to kill the victim and the blow was powerful enough to kill him wherever it struck him. If one intended to strike an adult and the blow was powerful enough to kill the adult, and the blow landed on a minor and he died, the assailant is liable. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one intended to kill this one and he killed that one, although he would be liable for killing either, he is exempt, because one is executed only if his action completely corresponded with his intent.",
+ "With regard to a murderer who was intermingled with others and it is not possible to identify the murderer, all of them are exempt from liability to be executed. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court gathers them into the vaulted chamber [lakippa] where they will eventually die. With regard to all those liable to be executed with different court-imposed death penalties who became intermingled with each other and it cannot be determined which individual was sentenced to which death, they are all sentenced to the most lenient form of execution to which any of them was sentenced. In a case where those who are liable to be stoned were intermingled with those who are liable to be burned, Rabbi Shimon says: They are all sentenced to be executed by stoning, as burning is a more severe form of execution than stoning. And the Rabbis say: They are all sentenced to be executed by burning, as stoning is a more severe form of execution than burning. Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: If burning were not more severe than stoning, it would not have been administered to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. A betrothed daughter of an Israelite who committed adultery is executed by stoning. If burning were not a more severe form of execution than stoning, it would not have been administered to the daughter of a priest who committed adultery, who would presumably receive a more severe punishment. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: If stoning were not more severe than burning it would not have been the death penalty administered to a blasphemer and to an idol worshipper, as their actions violate the very core of the Jewish faith. There is a parallel dispute: In a case where those who are liable to be killed by beheading were intermingled with those who are liable to be strangled, Rabbi Shimon says: They are all sentenced to be beheaded with a sword, as strangulation is a more severe form of execution than beheading. And the Rabbis say: They are all sentenced to be executed by strangulation, as beheading is a more severe form of execution than strangulation. ",
+ "One who is liable to be executed with two different court-imposed death penalties, as he violated two different capital transgressions, is sentenced to the more severe form of execution. If one violated one transgression for which he is liable to receive two death penalties, e.g., if one engaged in intercourse with his mother-in-law, who is also a married woman, he is sentenced to the more severe form of execution. Rabbi Yosei says: He is sentenced to the form of execution that he is liable to receive due to the first relationship that came upon him, i.e., if she was his mother-in-law before she was married, he is executed by burning; if she was married before she was his mother-in-law, he is punished by strangulation. ",
+ "One who was flogged for violating a prohibition and then repeated the violation and was flogged again assumes the status of a forewarned transgressor. The court places him into the vaulted chamber [lakippa] and feeds him barley bread until his belly ruptures due to the low-quality food, and he dies. With regard to one who kills a person not in the presence of witnesses and it is impossible to judge him in court, the court places him into a vaulted chamber and feeds him sparing bread and scant water (see Isaiah 30:20).",
+ "With regard to one who steals a kasva, and one who curses with a sorcerer, and one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots strike him and kill him. Although the Torah does not say that one who performs one of these actions is liable to be executed, it is permitted for anyone who zealously takes the vengeance of the Lord to do so. In the case of a priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity, his priestly brethren do not bring him to court for judgment; rather, the young men of the priesthood remove him from the Temple courtyard and pierce his skull with pieces of wood. In the case of a non-priest who performed the service in the Temple, Rabbi Akiva says: His execution is by strangulation, and the Rabbis say: He is not executed with a court-imposed death penalty; rather, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven."
+ ],
+ [
+ "All of the Jewish people, even sinners and those who are liable to be executed with a court-imposed death penalty, have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, for My name to be glorified” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the exceptions, the people who have no share in the World-to-Come, even when they fulfilled many mitzvot: One who says: There is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah, and one who says: The Torah did not originate from Heaven, and an epikoros, who treats Torah scholars and the Torah that they teach with contempt. Rabbi Akiva says: Also included in the exceptions are one who reads external literature, and one who whispers invocations over a wound and says as an invocation for healing: “Every illness that I placed upon Egypt I will not place upon you, for I am the Lord, your Healer” (Exodus 15:26). By doing so, he shows contempt for the sanctity of the name of God and therefore has no share in the World-to-Come. Abba Shaul says: Also included in the exceptions is one who pronounces the ineffable name of God as it is written, with its letters. ",
+ "Three prominent kings mentioned in the Bible and four prominent commoners who are described in the Bible as men of great wisdom have no share in the World-to-Come. The three kings are: Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and Ahab, both of whom were kings of Israel, and Manasseh, king of Judea. Rabbi Yehuda says: Manasseh has a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated concerning Manasseh: “And he prayed to Him, and He received his entreaty, and heard his supplication and brought him back to Jerusalem unto his kingdom” (II Chronicles 33:13), indicating that he repented wholeheartedly and effectively. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: He regretted his actions, and his repentance was effective to the extent that God restored him to his kingdom, but God did not restore him to his share in life in the World-to-Come. The four commoners are: Balaam, son of Beor; Doeg the Edomite; Ahithophel; and Gehazi.",
+ "The members of the generation of the flood have no share in the World-to-Come and will not stand in judgment at the end of days, as it is stated: “My soul shall not abide [yadon] in man forever” (Genesis 6:3); neither will they stand in judgment [din] nor shall their souls be restored to them. The members of the generation of the dispersion have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8), and it is written: “And from there did the Lord scatter them upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9). “And the Lord scattered them” indicates in this world; “and from there did the Lord scatter them” indicates for the World-to-Come. The people of Sodom have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly” (Genesis 13:13). “Wicked” indicates in this world; “and sinners” indicates for the World-to-Come. But they will stand in judgment and they will be sentenced to eternal contempt. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Both these, the people of Sodom, and those, the members of the generation of the flood, will not stand in judgment, as it is stated: “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5). “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”; this is referring to the generation of the flood, about whom it is written: “The wickedness of man was great upon the earth” (Genesis 6:5). “Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”; these are the people of Sodom, about whom it is written: “And the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners” (Genesis 13:13). The Sages said to Rabbi Neḥemya: They will not stand in judgment for resurrection in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in judgment in the congregation of the wicked. The spies who spread an evil report of their visit to Canaan have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And those men who spread the evil report about the land died by plague before the Lord” (Numbers 14:37). “And…died” indicates in this world; “by plague” indicates for the World-to-Come. The members of the generation of the wilderness have no share in the World-to-Come and will not stand in judgment, as it is stated: “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:35). “They shall be consumed” indicates in this world; “and there they shall die” indicates for the World-to-Come; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: The members of the generation of the wilderness were essentially righteous, and about them the verse says: “Gather My pious together to Me, those that have entered into My covenant by offering” (Psalms 50:5). It is they who entered into the covenant with God and they will certainly be rewarded in the future. The assembly of Korah is not destined to arise for resurrection, as it is stated: “And the earth closed upon them” (Numbers 16:33), meaning in this world, and also: “And they perished from among the assembly” (Numbers 16:33), meaning in the World-to-Come; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: About them the verse says: “The Lord kills and makes alive; He lowers to the grave, and raises” (I Samuel 2:6), indicating that the assembly of Korah has a share in the World-to-Come. The ten tribes are not destined to return to Eretz Yisrael, even during the messianic era, as it is stated: “And He cast them into another land, as it is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:27). Just as the day passes never to return, so too, the ten tribes go into exile and do not return; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: “As it is this day,” meaning just as the day darkens and then the sky brightens the next day, with regard to the ten tribes as well, although it is dark for them now, so it is destined to brighten for them.",
+ "The residents of an idolatrous city have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Certain men, wicked persons, are gone out from your midst, and have subverted the inhabitants of their city, saying: Let us go and let us worship other gods” (Deuteronomy 13:14). And idol worshippers are not executed as residents of an idolatrous city unless its subverters are from that city and from that tribe, and unless most of the inhabitants of the city are subverted, and unless men subvert the inhabitants of the city. If it occurs that women or children subvert the inhabitants of the city, or that a minority of the inhabitants of the city were subverted, or that its subverters were from outside the city and were neither residents of that city nor members of that tribe, these idol worshippers are judged as individuals. And to judge the inhabitants of a city one requires two witnesses and forewarning for each and every one who engaged in idol worship. This is a stringency with regard to individuals who worship idols that is more stringent than the halakha with regard to multitudes who worship idols: As the individuals who worship idols are executed by stoning; therefore, since there is a stringency with regard to their mode of execution, their property is spared and is inherited by their heirs. And the multitudes are executed by the sword; therefore, since there is a leniency with regard to their mode of execution, their property is eliminated. ",
+ "From the verse: “You shall smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy 13:16), it is derived that the caravan of donkeys and the caravan of camels that move from place to place, these donkey or camel drivers save the city. If they were residing in the city for a period, they could join the minority of permanent residents who were not subverted to idol worship in order to create a majority and prevent the destruction of the city and its contents. It is stated: “Destroy it utterly, and all that is in it and its animals, with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy 13:16). From here, the Sages stated: The property of the righteous, who did not engage in idol worship, that is inside the city is destroyed with the rest of the city and its contents; but the property of the righteous that is outside the city is spared. And the property of the wicked, whether it is inside the city or whether it is outside the city, these items are destroyed. ",
+ "“And you shall gather all of its spoils into the midst of its square” (Deuteronomy 13:17). If the city has no square, one creates a square for the city in order to fulfill the mitzva as it is written. If there was a square outside of the city, they bring it inside the city by expanding the city wall to include the square. It is stated in the continuation of the verse: “And you shall burn it with fire, both the city and all its spoils, entirely for the Lord your God.” The mishna infers: “Its spoils,” but not the spoils of Heaven. From here the Sages stated: The consecrated property in it, which was no longer the property of its inhabitants, must be redeemed, and terumot are neither eaten nor burned; rather they must be left to decay. And second tithe and sacred scrolls that were in the city must be interred. With regard to the phrase: “Entirely [kalil] for the Lord your God,” Rabbi Shimon says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If you implement judgment on an idolatrous city, I ascribe you credit as though you have sacrificed an entirely [kalil] burnt offering before Me. It is written: “And it shall be a heap forever” (Deuteronomy 13:17), meaning: The idolatrous city shall not be converted even into gardens and orchards; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: From the end of that verse: “It shall not be built again,” it is derived: To restore it to the way it was before destruction, it may not be built; but it may be converted into gardens and orchards. The next verse states: “And there shall cleave nothing of that which was devoted to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). This teaches that as long as the wicked exist in the world, there is wrath in the world; once the wicked are eliminated from the world, wrath leaves the world."
+ ],
+ [
+ "These are the transgressors who are strangled in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who strikes his father or his mother, and one who abducts a Jewish person, and a rebellious elder according to the court, and a false prophet, and one who prophesies in the name of idol worship, and one who engages in intercourse with a married woman, and conspiring witnesses who testify that the daughter of a priest committed adultery, even though were she guilty, she would be executed by burning. And her paramour is also executed via strangulation as in any case where a man engages in intercourse with a married woman. One who strikes his father or his mother is not liable to be executed unless he wounds one of them. This is a stringency with regard to one who curses his father that is more severe than the halakha with regard to one who strikes his father, as one who curses his father or his mother after his or her death is liable, but one who strikes one of them after his or her death is exempt, as he did not cause a wound. gemara The Sages taught in a baraita that it is written: “For any man who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death, he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him who curses his father and his mother shall die; he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him” (Leviticus 20:9). This is referring to one who curses his parents even after their death, as one might have thought: Since one is liable for striking and one is liable for cursing, just as one who strikes is liable only when his father or mother are alive, so too, one who curses is liable only when they are alive. One who abducts a Jewish person is not liable to be executed unless he brings the abductee into his domain. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is not liable unless he brings him into his domain and exploits him, as it is stated: “If a man shall be found abducting a person of his brethren from the children of Israel, and he exploited him and sold him, then that abductor shall die” (Deuteronomy 24:7). The phrase “exploited him” indicates using him for labor. With regard to one who abducts his own son and sells him, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. If one abducted one who is a half-slave half-freeman, i.e., a Canaanite slave who belonged to two owners and was emancipated by one of them, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.",
+ "A rebellious elder according to the court, who does not observe the ruling of the court, is executed by strangulation, as it is stated: “If there shall be a matter too hard for you in judgment…and you shall arise and ascend unto the place that the Lord your God shall choose…and you shall do according to the matter that they shall declare unto you…and the man that shall do so intentionally, not to listen…and that man shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:8–12). There were three courts there in Jerusalem. One convenes at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and one convenes at the entrance to the Temple courtyard, and one convenes in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. An elder who issues a ruling contrary to the ruling of his colleagues and his colleagues come to that court that is at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and the elder says: This is what I interpreted and that is what my colleagues interpreted; this is what I taught and that is what my colleagues taught. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling in that case, the court says it to them. And if not, they come to those judges who are convened at the entrance to the Temple courtyard, which is a more significant tribunal. And the elder says: This is what I interpreted and that is what my colleagues interpreted; this is what I taught and that is what my colleagues taught. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling in that case, the court says it to them. And if not, these judges and those judges come to the High Court, the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges that is in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, from which Torah emerges to the entire Jewish people, as it is stated: “And you shall do according to the matter that they shall declare unto you from that place that the Lord shall choose and you shall observe to perform according to all that they shall teach you” (Deuteronomy 17:10). They are the ultimate arbiters who establish the halakha that is binding. If they ruled contrary to the ruling of the elder and the elder then returned to his city, and nevertheless, he taught in the manner that he was teaching previously, he is exempt from punishment. But if he instructed others to act on the basis of his ruling that stands contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, he is liable to be executed, as it is stated: “And the man that shall do so intentionally not to listen” (Deuteronomy 17:12), meaning that one is not liable unless he instructs others to act. A student who is not yet an elder, i.e., he has not been ordained, who instructs others to act contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, is exempt, as a ruling given prior to ordination is not a valid ruling. It follows that his stringency is his leniency. The stringency imposed upon the student that he is not sanctioned to issue rulings results in the leniency that if he instructs others to act on the basis of his ruling that is contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, he is exempt.",
+ "With regard to the rulings of the rebellious elder the mishna states: There is greater stringency with regard to traditional rabbinic interpretations of the Torah than with regard to matters of Torah. If one states: There is no mitzva to don phylacteries, and his intention is in order to have others violate matters of Torah, he is exempt from punishment as a rebellious elder. One who disputes matters written explicitly in the Torah is not considered an elder and a Torah scholar, and therefore does not assume the status of a rebellious elder. If, however, he disputed a matter based on rabbinic tradition, e.g., he stated that there should be five compartments in the phylacteries of the head, in order to add an extra compartment to the four established according to traditional rabbinic interpretations of the Torah, he is liable.",
+ "One does not execute the rebellious elder, neither in the court that is in his city, nor in the court that is in Yavne, although that was the seat of the Sanhedrin after the destruction of the Second Temple. Rather, one takes him up to the High Court in Jerusalem. And they guard him in incarceration until the pilgrimage Festival, and the court executes him during the pilgrimage Festival, as it is stated: “And all the nation shall hear, and fear, and no longer sin intentionally” (Deuteronomy 17:13); this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not delay administering justice to this individual. Rather, the court executes him immediately, and the judges write reports and dispatch agents to all the places, informing them: So-and-so is liable to be punished with the court-imposed death penalty for disobeying the court.",
+ "The false prophet mentioned in the Torah includes one who prophesies that which he did not hear from God and one who prophesies that which was not said to him, even if it was said to another prophet. In those cases, his execution is at the hand of man, through strangulation imposed by the court. But with regard to one who suppresses his prophecy because he does not want to share it with the public, and one who contemptuously forgoes the statement of a prophet and refuses to heed it, and a prophet who violated his own statement and failed to perform that which he was commanded to do, his death is at the hand of Heaven, as it is stated: “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not hearken unto My words that he shall speak in My name, I will exact it of him” (Deuteronomy 18:19).",
+ "One who prophesies in the name of idol worship and says: This is what the idol said, even if he approximated the correct halakha in the name of the idol to deem ritually impure that which is ritually impure and to deem ritually pure that which is ritually pure, is executed by strangulation. In the case of one who engages in intercourse with a married woman once she entered her husband’s domain for the purposes of marriage, even if the marriage was not yet consummated, as she did not yet engage in intercourse with him, one who engages in intercourse with her is executed by strangulation. Before marriage, one who engages in intercourse with her is liable to be executed by stoning. And conspiring witnesses who testified that the daughter of a priest committed adultery are executed by strangulation, even though were she guilty, she would be executed by burning. And her paramour is also executed by strangulation, as in any case where one engages in intercourse with a married woman. As all those who are rendered conspiring witnesses are led to their deaths via the same mode of execution with which they conspired to have their victim executed, except for conspiring witnesses who testified that the daughter of a priest and her paramour committed adultery. In that case, although the priest’s daughter who commits adultery is executed by burning, the conspiring witnesses who sought to have her executed are executed by strangulation, as is the paramour whom they also conspired to have executed."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/merged.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67a944731d12016307dacbcaa6e3f63be7e30c7e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/English/merged.json
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+{
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "language": "en",
+ "versionTitle": "merged",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedrin",
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Cases concerning monetary law are adjudicated by three judges. Cases concerning robbery and personal injury are adjudicated by three judges. Cases concerning damage that one is responsible for because he or his property caused the damage are adjudicated by three judges as well. Likewise, cases concerning payment for half the damage, which is paid in the event that an ox whose owner has not been warned that it gored more than two times gores another animal (see Exodus 21:35); cases concerning payment of double the principal by a thief who was caught stealing (see Exodus 22:3); and cases concerning payment of four or five times the principal by a thief who slaughtered or sold a stolen ox or a lamb (see Exodus 21:37) are all adjudicated by three judges. Cases concerning one who rapes or one who seduces a virgin girl, and must therefore pay the girl’s father fifty silver shekels (see Deuteronomy 22:29, Exodus 22:15); and cases concerning a defamer who falsely asserts that his wife was not a virgin when she married him, and brings false witnesses who testify that she committed adultery while betrothed to him and who must therefore pay the girl’s father one hundred silver shekels as well as receive lashes (see Deuteronomy 22:13–19): All of these are adjudicated by three judges; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Cases concerning a defamer are adjudicated by a court of twenty-three judges, which is the type of court authorized to judge cases of capital law, because this case includes the possibility of becoming a case of capital law. The husband brings witnesses that his wife committed adultery. If she is found guilty, she is liable to receive the death penalty. This punishment applies to the witnesses if they are exposed as conspiring witnesses.",
+ "Cases concerning the violation of prohibitions that render one liable to receive lashes are adjudicated by three judges. The Sages stated in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Cases concerning lashes are adjudicated by twenty-three judges. The intercalation of the month is performed by a panel of three judges. The intercalation of the year, meaning the decision to add an extra month to the year when necessary, is also decided by a panel of three judges; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The deliberations begin with three judges, and they debate the matter with five judges, and they conclude the matter with seven judges, due to the significance of the decision. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concedes that if they concluded the matter with only three judges, the intercalation is valid and it is a leap year.",
+ "Both the laying of hands by the Sages and the breaking of the heifer’s neck in a case where a person was found murdered and it is not known who killed him (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9) are performed in front of a panel of three judges; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda says: These rituals are performed in front of five judges. Both ḥalitza, the ritual through which the yavam, a surviving brother of a married man who died without sons, frees the yevama, the widow, of her levirate bond in a case where the yavam does not wish to marry the yevama (see Deuteronomy 25:5–10), and the refusal of a girl before reaching majority to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brother married her off, are performed before a court of three judges. The halakha concerning fruit of a fourth-year sapling and second-tithe produce is that they are to be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. If this is impractical, the produce can be redeemed and the redemption money brought to Jerusalem, where it is used to purchase food and drink. Valuation of fruit of a fourth-year sapling or second-tithe produce in cases where their value is not known is performed by three judges. The valuation of consecrated property for purposes of redemption is performed by three judges, and the valuations that are movable property (see Leviticus 27:1–8) are performed by three judges. Rabbi Yehuda says: One of the three judges must be a priest. And the valuation of consecrated land is performed by nine judges and, in addition, one priest. And the valuation of a person for the purpose of a vow is performed in a similar manner to that of land.",
+ "Cases of capital law are judged by twenty-three judges. An animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality are judged by twenty-three judges, as it is stated: “And if a woman approaches any animal to lie with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal” (Leviticus 20:16), and it states: “And if a man lies with an animal, he shall be put to death and you shall kill the animal” (Leviticus 20:15). In cases of bestiality, the verse juxtaposes the execution of the animal to the execution of the person, and therefore the case of the animal is adjudicated in the same way as cases of capital law. Similarly, an ox that is to be stoned because it killed a person is judged by twenty-three judges, as it is stated: “But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and warning has been given to its owner, but he did not guard it and it kills a man or a woman the ox shall be stoned and also its owner shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:29). From this verse it is derived that just as the manner of the death of the owner, so is the manner of the death of the ox. The same halakha applies in the case of a wolf or a lion, a bear or a leopard, or a cheetah, or a snake that killed a person: Their death is decreed by twenty-three judges. Rabbi Eliezer says these dangerous animals do not need to be brought to court; rather, anyone who kills them first merits the performance of a mitzva. Rabbi Akiva says: Their death is decreed by twenty-three judges.",
+ "The court judges cases involving an entire tribe that sinned, or a false prophet (see Deuteronomy 18:20–22), or a High Priest who transgressed a prohibition that carries a possible death sentence, only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges, i.e., the Great Sanhedrin. And the king may bring the nation out to an optional war, i.e., a war that was not mandated by the Torah and is not a war of defense, only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. They may extend the city of Jerusalem or the courtyards of the Temple only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. And they may appoint a lesser Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges for the tribes only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. A city may be designated as an idolatrous city, i.e., a city whose residents all practice idolatry, and therefore according to Torah law all the residents must be killed and the city must be destroyed (see Deuteronomy 13:13–19), only in accordance with the ruling of a court of seventy-one judges. Additionally, the court may not designate a city as an idolatrous city if it is on the frontier, close to the borders of Eretz Yisrael, and three adjoining cities may not be designated as idolatrous cities. But the court may designate one city, or two adjoining cities, as idolatrous cities.",
+ "With regard to the number of judges in the different courts the mishna presents a halakhic midrash: The Great Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one judges, and a lesser Sanhedrin was composed of twenty-three. From where is it derived that the Great Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one judges? As it is stated: “Gather Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel, whom you know to be the Elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them into the Tent of Meeting, and they shall stand there with you” (Numbers 11:16), and together with Moses at the head of this body, there are a total of seventy-one. Rabbi Yehuda says: Moses was indeed at the head of the body, but he is not counted as part of the group. Consequently, a future Great Sanhedrin modeled after these Elders is to be composed of seventy judges. And from where is it derived that a lesser Sanhedrin is composed of twenty-three judges? As it is stated: “And the congregation shall judge between the assailant and the avenger…and the congregation shall save the manslayer from the hands of the avenger” (Numbers 35:24–25). Therefore, there must be a congregation, which consists of at least ten judges, that judges the accused and attempts to convict him, and there must be a congregation, also consisting of at least ten judges, which attempts to save the accused by finding him innocent. Together, there are twenty judges here. Before proceeding to derive the requirement for the final three judges, the mishna clarifies: And from where is it derived that a congregation consists of at least ten men? As it is stated concerning the spies: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation that keep complaining about me?” (Numbers 14:27) There were twelve spies; excluding Joshua and Caleb, who did not complain, there would be ten men who are called: A congregation. Accordingly, the verses describing a congregation that attempts to convict the accused and a congregation that attempts to acquit him together add up to twenty judges. And from where is it derived to bring three more judges to the court? From the implication of that which is stated: “You shall not follow a multitude to convict” (Exodus 23:2), I would derive that I may not convict a person on the basis of a majority but I should follow the majority to exonerate. If so, why is it stated in the same verse: “To incline after a multitude,” from which it can be understood that the majority is followed in all cases? In order to resolve the apparent contradiction it must be explained: Your inclination after the majority to exonerate is not like your inclination after the majority to convict. Your inclination after the majority to exonerate can result in a verdict by a majority of one judge. But your inclination after the majority to convict a transgressor must be by a more decisive majority of at least two. Therefore, the court must have at least twenty-two judges. And since there is a principle that a court may not be composed of an even number of judges, as such a court may be unable to reach a decision, therefore they add another one to them, and there are twenty-three judges here. And how many men must be in the city for it to be eligible for a lesser Sanhedrin? One hundred and twenty. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Two hundred and thirty, corresponding to the ministers of tens, as outlined by Moses and Yitro in the wilderness (Exodus, chapter 18). That is to say, each member of the Sanhedrin can be viewed as a judge with responsibility for ten residents. If there are not enough men in the city to enable this calculation, it would not be honorable to appoint a Sanhedrin, as their members will each preside over less than the minimum of ten residents."
+ ],
+ [
+ "The High Priest judges others if he is sufficiently wise, and others judge him when he transgresses. He testifies before the court and others testify concerning him. He performs ḥalitza with his brother’s widow and his brother performs ḥalitza with his wife; and his brother consummates levirate marriage with his wife. But he does not consummate levirate marriage with his brother’s widow, because it is prohibited for him to marry a widow (see Leviticus 21:14), and can therefore never fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage, as a yevama is by definition a widow. If a relative of the High Priest dies, he does not follow the bier carrying the corpse, since it is prohibited for the High Priest to become ritually impure even for immediate relatives (see Leviticus 21:11). Rather, once the members of the funeral procession are concealed from sight by turning onto another street, he is revealed on the street they departed, and when they are revealed, then he is concealed, and in this way, he goes out with them until the entrance of the gate of the city, from where they would take out the corpse, since the dead were not buried in Jerusalem. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not emerge from the Temple at all for the burial of his relatives, as it is stated: “And from the Temple he shall not emerge and will not desecrate the Temple of his God; for the separateness of the oil of the anointment of his God is on him” (Leviticus 21:12). The mishna continues: And when he consoles others in their mourning when they return from burial, the way of all the people is that they pass by one after another and the mourners stand in a line and are consoled, and the appointed person stands in the middle, between the High Priest and the people. And when he is consoled by others in his mourning, all the people say to him: We are your atonement. And he says to them: May you be blessed from Heaven. And when they comfort him with the first meal after the burial of one of his relatives, all the people recline on the ground as if they are taking his mourning on themselves, and he reclines on the bench out of respect for his status as High Priest.",
+ "The mishna continues, enumerating the halakhot pertaining to the king in similar matters: The king does not judge others as a member of a court and others do not judge him, he does not testify and others do not testify concerning him, he does not perform ḥalitza with his brother’s widow and his brother does not perform ḥalitza with his wife, and he does not consummate levirate marriage with his brother’s widow and his brother does not consummate levirate marriage with his wife, as all these actions are not fitting to the honor of his office. Rabbi Yehuda says: These are not restrictions, but his prerogative: If he desired to perform ḥalitza or to consummate levirate marriage, he is remembered for good, as this is to the benefit of his brother’s widow. The Sages said to him: They do not listen to him if he desires to do so, as this affects not only his own honor but that of the kingdom. And no one may marry a king’s widow, due to his honor. Rabbi Yehuda says: Another king may marry the widow of a king, as we found that King David married the widow of King Saul, as it is stated: “And I have given you the house of your master and the wives of your master in your bosom” (II Samuel 12:8).",
+ "If a relative of the king dies, he does not emerge from the entrance of his palace [palterin], as it does not befit one of his stature to accompany the deceased. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he wishes to follow the bier, he follows it, as that is what we found with regard to King David, who followed the bier of Abner. As it is stated: “And King David followed the bier” (II Samuel 3:31). The Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda: The matter was only to appease the people, so that they should not suspect David of ordering Abner’s death. And when the people comfort the king with the meal of comfort, all the people recline on the ground, and he reclines on the dargash.",
+ "And the king brings out people for conscription in an optional war, i.e., a war that is not mandated by the Torah and is not a war of defense, on the basis of a court of seventy-one, and breaches fences of anyone in his way to create a pathway for himself for his various needs, and no one can protest his power. The pathway of the king has no measure, neither lengthwise nor widthwise, and one cannot protest that this pathway is wider than necessary. And all the people take spoils in war and give them to him, and he takes the first portion of the spoils. mishna The king “shall not add many wives for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17), but only eighteen. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may add many wives for himself, provided that they are not like those who turn his heart away from reverence for God. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he wants to marry only one wife, if she turns his heart away, he should not marry her. If so, why is it stated: “He shall not add many wives for himself”? This teaches that even if his wives are like Abigail, who was righteous and prevented David from sin (see I Samuel, chapter 25), it is prohibited for him to have many wives. The king “shall not accumulate many horses for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:16), but only enough for his chariot in war and in peace. “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17), but only enough to provide his soldiers’ sustenance [aspanya]. And the king writes himself a Torah scroll for his sake, as stipulated in Deuteronomy 17:18. When he goes out to war, he brings it out with him. When he comes in from war, he brings it in with him. When he sits in judgment, it is with him. When he reclines to eat, it is opposite him, as it is stated: “And it shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life” (Deuteronomy 17:19).",
+ "One may not ride on the king’s horse, and one may not sit on his throne, and one may not use his scepter, and one may not see him when he is having his hair cut, nor when he is naked, nor when he is in the bathhouse, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning, ensure that his fear should be upon you. All of these actions would lessen one’s fear of and reverence for the king."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Cases of monetary law are adjudicated by three. They are chosen in the following manner: This litigant chooses one for himself and that litigant chooses one for himself, and the two of them choose one more for themselves; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The two judges that were chosen choose one more judge for themselves. This litigant can disqualify the judge chosen by that litigant and that litigant can disqualify the judge chosen by this litigant; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: When can one of the litigants disqualify the judges? Only when he brings evidence about them that they are related to one of the litigants or to each other, or that they are disqualified from serving as judges for another reason. But if they are fit to serve as judges or are experts ordained by the court, he cannot disqualify them. This litigant can disqualify the witnesses of that litigant and that litigant can disqualify the witnesses of this litigant; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: When can one litigant disqualify the other’s witnesses? Only when he brings evidence about them that they are related to one of the litigants or to each other, or that they are disqualified from bearing witness for another reason. But if they are fit to serve as witnesses, he cannot disqualify them.",
+ "If one litigant says to the other: My father is trusted to adjudicate for me, or: Your father is trusted to adjudicate for me, or: Three cattle herders, who are not proficient in halakha, are trusted to adjudicate for me, all of whom are disqualified from serving as judges, Rabbi Meir says: The one who made the offer can retract it, and the Rabbis say: He cannot retract it, but must accept their verdict. Similarly, one who was obligated by Torah law to take an oath to another, which is done while grasping a sacred object, and the latter said to him: Instead of taking an oath, merely vow to me by the life of your head that what you claim is true, Rabbi Meir says: The one who made the offer can retract it, and demand that the other litigant take an oath, as he is obligated to do by Torah law. And the Rabbis say: He cannot retract his offer. Once he has agreed to accept a vow, which is of less severity than an oath, he cannot retract his agreement.",
+ "And these on the following list are the ones who are disqualified by the Sages from bearing witness due to their unseemly behavior, as they are considered wicked individuals guilty of monetary transgressions: One who plays with dice [bekubbiyya] for money, and one who lends money with interest, and those who fly pigeons, and merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, which may be eaten but may not be sold as an object of commerce. Rabbi Shimon said: Initially, people would call them: Gatherers of the produce of the Sabbatical Year. Once the tax collectors grew abundant they would then call them: Merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, as the Gemara will explain. Rabbi Yehuda said: When are the people listed above disqualified from bearing witness? It is when they have no occupation but this one. But if they have an occupation other than this one, although they also make money by these inappropriate means, they are fit to bear witness.",
+ "And these are the ones disqualified from bearing witness or from serving as judges due to their status as relatives of one of the litigants or of each other: One’s brother, and his paternal uncle, and his maternal uncle, and his sister’s husband, and the husband of his paternal aunt, and the husband of his maternal aunt, and his mother’s husband, and his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law, i.e., the husband of his wife’s sister. They themselves, all of these people, and also their sons, and their sons-in-law are considered relatives. And his stepson alone is disqualified, but not his stepson’s sons or sons-in-law. Rabbi Yosei says: This aforementioned halakha is Rabbi Akiva’s version of the mishna. But the initial version of the mishna reads as follows: His uncle and the son of his uncle, and anyone who is fit to inherit from him. Only paternal relatives, who are fit to inherit from him, are disqualified; maternal relatives, who do not inherit from him, are not disqualified from bearing witness about him or from adjudicating his case. And the halakha disqualifying a relative from bearing witness or serving as a judge is referring to anyone who is related to him at the time of the trial. If one was once a relative and became unrelated by the time of the trial, e.g., he married the daughter of one of the litigants, but she died or they were divorced, in this case he is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if his daughter died but her husband, the former son-in-law, has children from her, he is still considered a relative; the children cause them to remain related.",
+ "One who loves or one who hates one of the litigants is also disqualified. With regard to one who loves one of the litigants, this is referring to his groomsman. One who hates is referring to anyone who, out of enmity, did not speak with the litigant for three days. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: The Jewish people are not suspected of bearing false witness due to love or hate.",
+ "How do the judges examine the witnesses? They bring them into a room in the courthouse and intimidate them so that they will speak only the truth. And they take all the people, other than the judges, outside so that they should not tell the other witnesses the questions the judges ask and the answers the first witness gives, and they leave only the eldest of the witnesses to testify first. And they say to him: Say how exactly you know that this litigant owes money to that litigant, as the plaintiff claims. If he said: The defendant said to me: It is true that I owe the plaintiff, or if he says: So-and-so said to me that the defendant owes the plaintiff, the witness has said nothing and his testimony is disregarded. It is not valid testimony unless he says: The defendant admitted in our presence to the plaintiff that he owes him, e.g., two hundred dinars. By admitting to the debt in the presence of witnesses he renders himself liable to pay the amount that he mentioned. And afterward they bring in the second witness and examine him in the same manner. If their statements are found to be congruent the judges then discuss the matter. If the opinions of the judges are divided, as two judges say that the defendant is exempt from payment and one says he is liable to pay, he is exempt. If two say he is liable and one says he is exempt, he is liable. If one says he is liable and one says he is exempt, or even if two of the judges deem him exempt or two of them deem him liable, and the other one says: I do not know, the court must add more judges and then rule in accordance with the majority opinion. This is because the one who abstains is considered as though he is not a member of the court.",
+ "After the judges finish the matter and reach a decision, they bring in the litigants. The greatest of the judges says: So-and-so, you are exempt from paying; or: So-and-so, you are liable to pay. And from where is it derived that when the judge leaves the courtroom he may not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? About this it is stated: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13).",
+ "Any time one of the litigants brings additional proof, he can overturn the verdict that was decided according to previous proofs. If one litigant said to the other: Bring all the proofs that you have from now until thirty days from now, if he found additional proof within thirty days, he can overturn the verdict. If he found it after thirty days, he cannot overturn the verdict anymore. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: He can still overturn the verdict, as what should this litigant, who sought and did not find additional proof within thirty days but found it after thirty days, have done? In a case where one litigant said to the other: Bring witnesses, and the latter said: I have no witnesses, and the former said to him: Bring a proof, and he said: I have no proof, and he later brought a proof or found witnesses, in this case, this proof or these witnesses are worth nothing. It is apparently a false proof or false testimony. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: What should this litigant, who did not know that he has witnesses and ultimately found witnesses, or who did not know that he has a proof and ultimately found proof, have done? Therefore, he can still overturn the verdict. If at the beginning of the discussion in the court one did not bring witnesses or other evidence for his claims, but then he saw that he was about to be deemed liable to pay in the judgment, and said: Bring so-and-so and so-and-so, and they will testify on my behalf, or he pulled out a proof from under his belt [pundato], even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that this is worth nothing. If there was truth in the testimony of these witnesses or in this proof, he would not have hidden it until now."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Both cases of monetary law and cases of capital law are equal with regard to the requirement for inquiry and interrogation of the witnesses, as it is stated: “You shall have one manner of law” (Leviticus 24:22), meaning that all legal procedures must be uniform. Having stated the essential similarity between the two, the mishna enumerates the differences between them. What are the differences between cases of monetary law and cases of capital law? Cases of monetary law are judged by a court of three judges, and cases of capital law are judged by a court of twenty-three judges. In cases of monetary law, the court opens the deliberations either with a claim to exempt the accused, or with a claim to find him liable. And in cases of capital law, the court opens the deliberations with a claim to acquit the accused, but it does not open the deliberations with a claim to find him liable. In cases of monetary law, the court directs, i.e., issues, the ruling based on a majority of one judge, either to exempt, or to find liable. But in cases of capital law, the court directs the judgment based on a majority of one judge to acquit and based on a majority of two judges to find liable. In cases of monetary law, the court brings the accused back to be judged again if new evidence arises, either with a claim to exempt the accused, or with a claim to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court brings the accused back to be judged again with a claim to acquit him, but the court does not bring him back to be judged with a claim to find him liable. In cases of monetary law, all those present at the trial may teach a reason to exempt a litigant or to find him liable. In cases of capital law, all those present at the trial may teach a reason to acquit the accused, but not all present may teach a reason to find him liable. Only the judges can teach a reason to find him liable. In cases of monetary law, one who initially teaches a reason to find the accused liable may then teach a reason to exempt him, and one who initially teaches a reason to exempt him may then teach a reason to find him liable. In cases of capital law, one who initially teaches a reason to find him liable may then teach a reason to acquit, but one who initially teaches a reason to acquit may not return and teach a reason to find him liable. In cases of monetary law, the court judges during the daytime, and may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even at night. In cases of capital law, the court judges during the daytime, and concludes the deliberations and issues the ruling only in the daytime. In cases of monetary law, the court may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even on that same day, whether to exempt the accused or to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even on that same day to acquit the accused, but must wait until the following day to find him liable. Therefore, since capital cases might continue for two days, the court does not judge cases of capital law on certain days, neither on the eve of Shabbat nor the eve of a Festival.",
+ "In cases of monetary law, and likewise in the cases of ritual impurity and purity, the judges commence expressing their opinions from the greatest of the judges. In cases of capital law, the judges commence issuing their opinions from the side, where the least significant judges sit. All are fit to judge cases of monetary law. But not all are fit to judge cases of capital law; only priests, Levites, and Israelites who are of sufficiently fit lineage to marry their daughters to members of the priesthood are fit to judge cases of capital law.",
+ "A Sanhedrin of twenty-three was arranged in the same layout as half of a circular threshing floor, in order that all the judges will see one another and the witnesses. And two judges’ scribes stand before the court, one on the right and one on the left, and they write the statements of those who find the accused liable and the statements of those who acquit the accused. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were three scribes. One writes only the statements of those who acquit the accused, one writes only the statements of those who find him liable, and the third writes both the statements of those who acquit the accused and the statements of those who find him liable, so that if there is uncertainty concerning the precise wording that one of the scribes writes, it can be compared to the words of the third scribe.",
+ "And three rows of Torah scholars sit before the judges, and each and every one among those sitting recognizes his place, i.e., they are seated in accordance with their stature. When the court must ordain an additional judge, e.g., if a judge dies during the proceedings or in the case of a court without a decisive majority (see 40a), the court ordains the greatest Torah scholar from the first row. As a seat in the first row is now vacant, one Torah scholar from the second row comes to the first row, and one Torah scholar from the third row comes to the second row, and the court selects another Torah scholar from among the assembled and they seat him in the third row. And this Torah scholar who moves from the second row to the first row would not sit in the place of the first Torah scholar, who joined the court, rather, he would sit in the place appropriate for him, i.e., at the end of that row, in accordance with his stature.",
+ "How does the court intimidate the witnesses in giving testimony for cases of capital law? They would bring the witnesses in and intimidate them by saying to them: Perhaps what you say in your testimony is based on conjecture, or perhaps it is based on a rumor, perhaps it is testimony based on hearsay, e.g., you heard a witness testify to this in a different court, or perhaps it is based on the statement of a trusted person. Perhaps you do not know that ultimately we examine you with inquiry and interrogation, and if you are lying, your lie will be discovered. The court tells them: You should know that cases of capital law are not like cases of monetary law. In cases of monetary law, a person who testifies falsely, causing money to be given to the wrong party, can give the money to the proper owner and his sin is atoned for. In cases of capital law, if one testifies falsely, the blood of the accused and the blood of his offspring that he did not merit to produce are ascribed to the witness’s testimony until eternity. The proof for this is as we found with Cain, who killed his brother, as it is stated concerning him: “The voice of your brother’s blood [demei] cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10). The verse does not state: Your brother’s blood [dam], in the singular, but rather: “Your brother’s blood [demei],” in the plural. This serves to teach that the loss of both his brother’s blood and the blood of his brother’s offspring are ascribed to Cain. The mishna notes: Alternatively, the phrase “your brother’s blood [demei],” written in the plural, teaches that that his blood was not gathered in one place but was splattered on the trees and on the stones. The court tells the witnesses: Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone, to teach you that with regard to anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, i.e., kills one Jew, the verse ascribes him blame as if he destroyed an entire world, as Adam was one person, from whom the population of an entire world came forth. And conversely, anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sustained an entire world. The mishna cites another reason Adam the first man was created alone: And this was done due to the importance of maintaining peace among people, so that one person will not say to another: My father, i.e., progenitor, is greater than your father. And it was also so that the heretics who believe in multiple gods will not say: There are many authorities in Heaven, and each created a different person. And this serves to tell of the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as when a person stamps several coins with one seal, they are all similar to each other. But the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, stamped all people with the seal of Adam the first man, as all of them are his offspring, and not one of them is similar to another. Therefore, since all humanity descends from one person, each and every person is obligated to say: The world was created for me, as one person can be the source of all humanity, and recognize the significance of his actions. The court says to the witnesses: And perhaps you will say: Why would we want this trouble? Perhaps it would be better not to testify at all. But be aware, as is it not already stated: “And he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1)? It is a transgression not to testify when one can do so. And perhaps you will say: Why would we want to be responsible for the blood of this person? But be aware, as is it not already stated: “When the wicked perish, there is song” (Proverbs 11:10)?"
+ ],
+ [
+ "The court would examine the witnesses in capital cases with seven interrogations, i.e., interrogatory questions, and they are: In which seven-year period, that is, in which cycle of seven years within a jubilee did the event occur; in which year of the Sabbatical cycle did the event occur; in which month did the event occur; on which day of the month did the event occur; on which day of the week did the event occur; at which hour did the event occur; and in what place did the event occur. Rabbi Yosei says: The court would examine the witnesses with only three interrogations: On which day did the event occur, at which hour, and in what place. They would also ask: Do you recognize him as the man who committed the transgression? Did you warn him? They would then ask the witnesses about the particulars of the incident. For example, in the case of one who is an accused idol worshipper, they ask the witnesses: Whom, i.e., which idol, did he worship, and in what manner did he worship it, and so on.",
+ "With regard to all judges who increase the number of examinations, i.e., who add questions about the details of the event, this is praiseworthy, as this may clarify that the witnesses are lying. An incident occurred and ben Zakkai examined the witnesses by questioning them about the color and shape of the stems of figs in order to unearth a contradiction between the witnesses. The mishna explains: What is the difference between interrogations and examinations? With regard to interrogations, if one of the witnesses says: I do not know the answer, their testimony is void immediately. With regard to examinations, if one says: I do not know the answer, and even if two say: We do not know the answer, their testimony still stands. Both with regard to interrogations and examinations, at a time when the witnesses contradict one another, their testimony is void.",
+ "The mishna clarifies: If one witness says the event occurred on the second of the month, and one witness says that the event occurred on the third of the month, this is not regarded as a contradiction and their testimony stands, since it is possible to say that this witness knows of the addition of a day to the previous month, and according to his tally the event occurred on the second of the month, and that witness does not know of the addition of a day to the previous month, and according to his tally the event occurred on the third of the month. Their testimony is not considered incongruent. By contrast, if this witness says the event occurred on the third of the month and one witness says the event occurred on the fifth of the month, their testimony is void, as this disparity cannot be attributed to a mere error. Therefore, their testimony is not congruent. Similarly, if one witness says that the event occurred at two hours, i.e., the second hour of the day from sunrise, and one witness says that the event occurred at three hours, their testimony stands, as one could reasonably err this amount in estimating the hour of the day. By contrast, if one says that the event occurred at three hours, and one says that the event occurred at five hours, their testimony is void. Rabbi Yehuda says: Also in this case their testimony stands, as one could reasonably err concerning even this length of time. Rabbi Yehuda adds: But if one says that the event occurred at five hours, and one says that the event occurred at seven hours, their testimony is void. Here the difference is recognizable to all, since at five hours the sun is in the east and at seven the sun is in the west, and one could not err concerning this. Therefore, their testimony is not congruent.",
+ "The mishna continues: And afterward, after the court examines the first witness, they bring in the second witness and examine him. If the statements of the witnesses are found to be congruent, the court begins to deliberate the matter. They open the deliberations with an appeal to anyone who can find a reason to acquit the accused. If one of the witnesses said: I can teach a reason to acquit him, or if one of the students sitting before the judges said: I can teach a reason to deem him liable, the judges silence him, i.e., both the witness and the student. The reason is that these people are not allowed to offer information such as this. But if one of the students said: I can to teach a reason to acquit him, they raise him to the seat of the court and seat him among them, and he would not descend from there the entire day, but would sit and participate in their deliberations. If the statement of that student has substance, the court listens to him. And if even the accused says: I can teach a reason to acquit me, the court listens to him and considers his statement, provided that his statement has substance.",
+ "And if the court found it fit to acquit him during the deliberations, as all or a majority of the judges agreed to acquit him, they excuse him. But if a majority does not find it fit to acquit him, they delay his verdict to the following day, and they then assign pairs of judges to discuss the matter with each other. They would minimize their food intake and they would not drink wine all day. And they would deliberate all night, and the following day they would arise early and come to court and then vote again and tally the votes of the judges. One who yesterday was of the opinion to acquit the defendant says: I said to acquit, and I acquit in my place, i.e., I stand by my statement to acquit. And one who yesterday was of the opinion to deem him liable says: I said to deem him liable, and I deem him liable in my place. One who yesterday taught a reason to deem him liable may then teach a reason to acquit, but one who yesterday taught a reason to acquit may not then teach a reason to deem him liable. If they erred in the matter, as one of the judges forgot what he had said the previous day, two judges’ scribes, who recorded the statements of the judges, remind him. If the court then found it fit to acquit him unanimously, they excuse him, and if not all of the judges determine to acquit, they stand to count the vote. If twelve judges vote to acquit him and eleven judges deem him liable, he is acquitted. The mishna continues: In a case where twelve judges deem him liable and eleven judges acquit; or even if eleven judges acquit and eleven deem him liable and one judge says: I do not know; or even if twenty-two judges acquit or deem him liable and one judge says: I do not know, the judge who said he does not know is disregarded, and the judges add additional judges to the court until they reach a definitive ruling. And how many judges do they add? They add pairs of two judges each time they do not reach a ruling until there are seventy-one judges, but no more than that. At that point, if thirty-six judges acquit and thirty-five judges deem him liable, he is acquitted. If thirty-six judges deem him liable and thirty-five judges acquit, they continue to deliberate the matter, these judges against those judges, until one of those who deems him liable sees the validity of the statements of those who acquit and changes his position, as the court does not condemn a defendant to death by a majority of one judge."
+ ],
+ [
+ "When the trial has ended in a guilty verdict and the condemned man has been sentenced to be stoned, he is taken out to be stoned. The place of stoning was outside the court and a little beyond it, as it is stated with regard to a blasphemer: “Take out him who has cursed to outside the camp, and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him” (Leviticus 24:14). One man stands at the entrance to the court, with cloths [vehasudarin] in his hand, and another man sits on a horse at a distance from him but where he can still see him. If one of the judges says: I can teach a reason to acquit him, the other, i.e., the man with the cloths, waves the cloths as a signal to the man on the horse, and the horse races off after the court agents who are leading the condemned man to his execution, and he stops them, and they wait until the court determines whether or not the argument has substance. And even if he, the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse, even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words. If, after the condemned man is returned to the courthouse, the judges find a reason to acquit him, they acquit him and release him immediately. But if they do not find a reason to acquit him, he goes out to be stoned. And a crier goes out before him and publicly proclaims: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going out to be stoned because he committed such and such a transgression. And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf.",
+ "When the condemned man is at a distance of about ten cubits from the place of stoning, they say to him: Confess your transgressions, as the way of all who are being executed is to confess. As whoever confesses and regrets his transgressions has a portion in the World-to-Come. For so we find with regard to Achan, that Joshua said to him: “My son, please give glory to the Lord, God of Israel, and make confession to Him” (Joshua 7:19). And the next verse states: “And Achan answered Joshua, and said: Indeed I have sinned against the Lord, God of Israel, and like this and like that have I done.” And from where is it derived that Achan’s confession achieved atonement for him? It is derived from here, as it is stated: “And Joshua said: Why have you brought trouble on us? The Lord shall trouble you this day” (Joshua 7:25). Joshua said to Achan as follows: On this day of your judgment you are troubled, but you will not be troubled in the World-to-Come. And if the condemned man does not know how to confess, either from ignorance or out of confusion, they say to him: Say simply: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the condemned man knows that he was convicted by the testimony of conspiring witnesses, but in fact he is innocent, he says: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins except for this sin. The Sages who disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda said to him: If so, every person who is being executed will say that, to clear himself in the eyes of the public. Therefore, if the condemned man does not make such a statement on his own, the court does not suggest it to him as an alternative.",
+ "When the condemned man is at a distance of four cubits from the place of stoning, they take off his clothes. They cover a man’s genitals in the front, and a woman is covered both in the front and in the back; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Rabbis say: A man is stoned naked, i.e., wearing only that cloth covering, but a woman is not stoned naked, but is stoned while clothed.",
+ "The place of stoning from which the condemned man is pushed to his death is a platform twice the height of an ordinary person. He is made to stand at the edge of the platform, and then one of the witnesses who testified against him pushes him down by the hips, so that he falls face up onto the ground. If he turned over onto his chest, with his face downward, the witness turns him over onto his hips. And if he dies through this fall to the ground, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled. And if the condemned man does not die from his fall, the second witness takes the stone that has been prepared for this task and places, i.e., casts, it on his chest. And if he dies with the casting of this first stone, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled. And if he does not die with the casting of this stone, then his stoning is completed by all of the Jewish people, i.e., by all the people who assembled for the execution, as it is stated: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people” (Deuteronomy 17:7). The corpses of all those who are stoned are hung after their death; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: Only the corpse of the blasphemer, who has cursed God, and the corpse of the idol worshipper are hung. The corpse of a man is hung facing the people, but the corpse of a woman, out of modesty, is hung with facing the tree; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: the corpse of a man is hung, but the corpse of a woman is not hung. Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Did Shimon ben Shataḥ not hang in Ashkelon women who were found guilty of witchcraft, proving that the corpse of a woman who is executed is also hung? They said to him: No proof can be brought from here, as he hanged eighty women on that day, and the halakha is that the same court may not judge even two people charged with capital transgressions on the same day. It is therefore clear that he was not acting in accordance with Torah law, but rather his execution of the eighty women was an extraordinary punishment necessitated by unusually pressing circumstances. How do they hang the corpse of one who was put to death by stoning? They sink a post into the earth with a piece of wood jutting out, forming a T-shaped structure. And the court appointee then places the dead man’s two hands one upon the other, ties them, and hangs him by his hands. Rabbi Yosei says: The post is not sunk into the ground; rather, it leans against a wall, and he hangs the corpse on it the way that butchers do with meat. The dead man hangs there for only a very short time, and then they immediately untie him. And if he was left hanging overnight, a prohibition is transgressed, as it is stated: “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him that day, for he that is hung is a curse of God” (Deuteronomy 21:23). That is to say: Were the corpse left hanging on the tree overnight, people would ask: For what reason was this one hung after he was put to death? They would be answered: Because he blessed God, a euphemism for blasphemy. And therefore the name of Heaven would be desecrated were the dead man’s corpse to remain hanging, reminding everybody of his transgression.",
+ "Rabbi Meir said: The phrase “for he that is hung is a curse [kilelat] of God” should be understood as follows: When a man suffers in the wake of his sin, what expression does the Divine Presence use? I am distressed [kallani] about My head, I am distressed about My arm, meaning, I, too, suffer when the wicked are punished. From here it is derived: If God suffers such distress over the blood of the wicked that is spilled, even though they justly deserved their punishment, it can be inferred a fortiori that He suffers distress over the blood of the righteous. And the Sages said not only this, that an executed transgressor must be buried on the same day that he is killed, but they said that anyone who leaves his deceased relative overnight with-out burying him transgresses a prohibition. But if he left the deceased overnight for the sake of the deceased’s honor, e.g., to bring a coffin or shrouds for his burial, he does not transgress the prohibition against leaving him unburied overnight. After the executed transgressor is taken down he is buried, and they would not bury him in his ancestral burial plot. Rather, two graveyards were established for the burial of those executed by the court: One for those who were killed by decapitation or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned. ",
+ "Once the flesh of the deceased had decomposed, they would gather his bones and bury them in their proper place in his ancestral burial plot. And soon after the execution, the relatives of the executed transgressor would come and inquire about the welfare of the judges and about the welfare of the witnesses, as if to say: We hold no grudges against you, as you judged a true judgment. And the relatives of the executed man would not mourn him with the observance of the usual mourning rites, so that his unmourned death would atone for his transgression; but they would grieve over his passing, since grief is felt only in the heart."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Four types of the death penalty were given over to the court, with which those who committed certain transgressions are executed. They are, in descending order of severity: Stoning, burning, killing by decapitation, and strangulation. Rabbi Shimon says: They are, in descending order of severity: Burning, stoning, strangulation, and killing. This execution, described in the previous chapter, is referring to the mitzva of those who are stoned, i.e., to the process of execution by stoning.",
+ "The mitzva of those who are burned, i.e., the process of execution by burning, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and they place a rough scarf within a soft one, so his throat will not be wounded, and wrap these scarves around his neck. This one, i.e., one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward himself, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward himself, until the condemned one is forced to open his mouth, as he is choking. And another person then lights the wick and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies. Rabbi Yehuda says: But if this one who is condemned to death by burning accidentally died at their hands by strangulation, they have not fulfilled the mitzva of execution by burning for this person. Rather, the process is carried out in the following manner: One opens the mouth of the condemned person with prongs, against his will, and one lights the wick and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies. Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok said: An incident occurred with regard to a certain priest’s daughter who committed adultery, and they wrapped her in bundles of branches and burned her, contrary to the process described in the mishna. The Sages said to him: That court did not act properly; they did so because the court at that time was not proficient in halakha.",
+ "The mitzva of those who are killed, i.e., the process of execution by decapitation, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners cut off his head with a sword, the way that the monarchy does when a king sentences a person to death. Rabbi Yehuda says: This manner of execution is improper, as it degrades him. Rather, they place the head of the condemned on the block, and chop it off with a cleaver [bekofitz]. The Rabbis said to him: If you are concerned about his degradation, there is no death penalty more degrading than that. It is better for him to be executed in the manner described first. The mitzva of those who are strangled is carried out in the following manner: The agents of the court submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and one of them places a rough scarf within a soft one, and wraps it around his neck. This one, i.e., one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward him, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward him, until the soul of the condemned one departs.",
+ "These transgressors are those who are stoned to death: One who engages in intercourse with his mother; or with his father’s wife, even if she is not his mother; or with his daughter-in-law; or with a male; or with an animal; and a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal. And one who blasphemes, and one who engages in idol worship. And one who gives of his offspring to Molekh, and a necromancer, and a sorcerer. And one who desecrates Shabbat, and one who curses his father or his mother, and one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, and an inciter who incites individuals to idol worship, and a subverter who incites an entire city to idol worship, and a warlock, and a stubborn and rebellious son. The mishna elaborates: One who unwittingly engages in intercourse with his mother who is also his father’s wife is liable to bring two sin-offerings for his intercourse with her: One due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s mother and one due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s father’s wife. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable to bring only one sin-offering, due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s mother. One who unwittingly engages in intercourse with his father’s wife while his father is married to her is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s father’s wife and one due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a married woman. He is liable due to the former prohibition both during his father’s lifetime and after his father’s death, and whether the relationship between the woman and his father is one of betrothal or one of marriage. Likewise, one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with his daughter-in-law during his son’s lifetime is liable to bring two sin-offerings for his intercourse with her: One due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s daughter-in-law, and one due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a married woman. The former liability applies both during his son’s lifetime and after his son’s death, and whether the relationship between the woman and his son is one of betrothal or one of marriage. A man who engages in intercourse with a male or with an animal, and a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal, are executed by stoning. The animal is likewise stoned to death. The mishna asks: If the person sinned by doing this, how did the animal sin? Rather, because a calamity was caused to a person by it, therefore the verse states that it should be stoned, so that it does not cause another to sin. Alternatively, it is so that this animal will not pass through the marketplace, and those who see it will say: This is the animal because of which so-and-so was stoned, and its existence would shame his memory.",
+ "One who blasphemes, i.e., one who curses God, is not liable unless he utters the name of God and curses it. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: On every day of a blasphemer’s trial, when the judges judge the witnesses, i.e., interrogate the witnesses, they ask the witnesses to use an appellation for the name of God, so that they do not utter a curse of God’s name. Specifically, the witnesses would say: Let Yosei smite Yosei, as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, as does the Tetragrammaton. When the judgment is over, and the court votes to deem the defendant guilty, they do not sentence him to death based on the testimony of the witnesses in which they used an appellation for the name of God, without having ever heard the exact wording of the curse. Rather, they remove all the people who are not required to be there from the court, so that the curse is not heard publicly, and the judges interrogate the eldest of the witnesses, and say to him: Say what you heard explicitly. And he says exactly what he heard. And the judges stand on their feet and make a tear in their garments, as an act of mourning for the desecration of the honor of God. And they do not ever fully stitch it back together again. And the second witness says: I too heard as he did, but he does not repeat the curse explicitly. And the third witness, in the event that there is one, says: I too heard as he did. In this manner, the repetition of the invective sentence is limited to what is absolutely necessary.",
+ "One who worships idols is executed by stoning. This includes one who worships an idol, and one who slaughters an animal as an idolatrous offering, and one who burns incense as an idolatrous offering, and one who pours a libation in idol worship, and one who bows to an idol, and one who declares that he accepts an idol upon himself as a god, and one who says to an idol: You are my god. But with regard to one who hugs an idol, or one who kisses it, or one who cleans it, or one who sprays water before it, or one who washes it, or one who rubs it with oil, or one who dresses it, or one who puts its shoes on it, he transgresses a prohibition but is not liable to receive capital punishment. With regard to one who vows in an idol’s name and one who affirms his statement by an oath in its name, he transgresses a prohibition. One who defecates before the idol known as Ba’al-Peor is liable to receive capital punishment, even though defecating is a degrading act, as that is its form of worship. Likewise, one who throws a stone at Mercury is liable to receive capital punishment, as that is its form of worship.",
+ "One who gives of his offspring to Molekh, for which one is executed by stoning, is not liable unless he hands over his child to the priests of Molekh and passes the child through the fire. If he handed over the child to the priests of Molekh but did not pass him through the fire, or if he passed him through the fire but did not hand him over to the priests of Molekh, he is not liable, unless he hands the child over to the priests of Molekh and passes him through the fire. The list of those liable to be executed by stoning includes those who practice various types of sorcery. The mishna describes them: A necromancer is a pitom from whose armpit the voice of the dead appears to speak. And a sorcerer is one from whose mouth the dead appears to speak. These, the necromancer and the sorcerer, are executed by stoning, and one who inquires about the future through them is in violation of a prohibition.",
+ "Also liable to be executed by stoning is one who desecrates Shabbat by performing a matter that for its intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for its unwitting performance one is obligated to bring a sin-offering. One who curses his father or his mother is not liable to be executed by stoning unless he curses them with the name of God. If he cursed them with an appellation of the name of God, Rabbi Meir deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.",
+ "One who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman is not liable to be executed by stoning unless she is a young woman, i.e., neither a minor nor an adult; a virgin; betrothed but not yet married; and she lives in her father’s home, having yet to move in with her husband. If two men engaged in intercourse with her, the first is liable to be executed by stoning, and the second is liable to be executed by strangulation. The second man is executed in this manner in accordance with the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with a married or non-virgin betrothed woman, as she was no longer a virgin when he engaged in intercourse with her.",
+ "With regard to the case of an inciter, listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is an ordinary person, not a prophet. And it is referring to one who incites an ordinary person and not a multitude of people. What does the inciter do? He says: There is an idol in such and such a place, which eats like this, drinks like this, does good for its worshippers like this, and harms those who do not worship it like this. The mishna states a principle with regard to the halakha of an inciter: With regard to all of those mentioned in the Torah who are liable to receive the death penalty, if there are no witnesses to their transgressions, the court does not hide witnesses in order to ensnare and punish them, except for this case of an inciter. The mishna elaborates: If the inciter said his words of incitement to two men, they are his witnesses, and he does not need to be warned before the transgression; they bring him to court and stone him. If he said his words of incitement to one man alone, that man’s testimony would not be sufficient to have the inciter executed. Therefore he says to the inciter: I have friends who are interested in this; tell them too. This way there will be more witnesses. The mishna continues: If the inciter is cunning, and he knows that he cannot speak in front of two men, the court hides witnesses for him behind the fence so that he will not see them, and the man whom the inciter had previously tried to incite says to him: Say what you said to me when we were in seclusion. And the other person, the inciter, says to him again that he should worship the idol. And he says to the inciter: How can we forsake our God in Heaven and go and worship wood and stones? If the inciter retracts his suggestion, that is good. But if he says: This idol worship is our duty; this is what suits us, then those standing behind the fence bring him to court and have him stoned. The halakha of an inciter includes one who says: I shall worship idols, or one of the following statements: I shall go and worship idols, or: let us go and worship idols, or: I shall sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: I shall go and sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: Let us go and sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: I shall burn incense as an idolatrous offering, or: I shall go and burn incense, or: Let us go and burn incense, or: I shall pour an idolatrous libation, or: I shall go and pour a libation, or: Let us go and pour a libation, or: I shall bow to an idol, or: I shall go and bow, or: Let us go and bow. With regard to the case of the subverter listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is one who says to a multitude of people: Let us go and worship idols.",
+ "The warlock is also liable to be executed by stoning. One who performs a real act of sorcery is liable, but not one who deceives the eyes, making it appear as though he is performing sorcery, as that is not considered sorcery. Rabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: For example, two people can each gather cucumbers by sorcery. One of them gathers cucumbers and he is exempt, and the other one gathers cucumbers and he is liable. How so? The one who performs a real act of sorcery is liable, and the one who deceives the eyes is exempt."
+ ],
+ [
+ "The Torah describes the punishment given to a son who steals money from his parents to eat a gluttonous meal of meat and wine in the company of lowly men. If his parents bring him to court for this act, he is exhorted to desist and is punished with lashes. If he repeats the same misdeed and is again brought to court by his parents within the same three-month period, he is considered a stubborn and rebellious son [ben sorer umoreh]. He is liable to receive the death penalty, which in this case is execution by stoning. From when does a stubborn and rebellious son become liable to receive the death penalty imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son? From when he grows two pubic hairs, which are a sign of puberty and from which time he is considered an adult, until he has grown a beard around. The reference here is to the lower beard surrounding his genitals, and not the upper beard, i.e., his facial hair, but the Sages spoke in euphemistic terms. As it is stated: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son” (Deuteronomy 21:18), which indicates that the penalty for rebelliousness is imposed upon a son, but not upon a daughter; and upon a son, but not upon a fully grown man. A minor under the age of thirteen is exempt from the penalty imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son, because he has not yet reached the age of inclusion in mitzvot.",
+ "From when is a stubborn and rebellious son liable? From when he eats a tarteimar of meat and drinks a half-log of Italian wine. Rabbi Yosei says: From when he eats a maneh of meat and drinks a log of wine. The mishna now lists a series of conditions concerning his eating and drinking. If he ate these items with a group assembled for the performance of a mitzva, or he ate them at a meal celebrating the intercalation of a month, or he ate the items when they had second tithe status, in Jerusalem, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son because each of these circumstances involves some aspect of a mitzva. If he ate the meat of unslaughtered animal carcasses or animals that had wounds that would have caused them to die within twelve months [tereifot] or repugnant creatures or creeping animals, or he ate untithed produce from which tithes and terumot were not separated, or first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, or second tithe outside Jerusalem or consecrated food that was not redeemed, each of which involves a transgression, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. The mishna summarizes: If he ate an item that involves performing a mitzva or an item that involves committing a transgression, or if he ate any food in the world but did not eat meat, or if he drank any beverage but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he actually eats meat and actually drinks wine, as it is stated: “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he does not listen to our voice; he…is a glutton [zolel] and a drunkard [vesovei]” (Deuteronomy 21:20). One is not called a glutton and a drunkard unless he eats meat and drinks wine. And although there is no explicit proof to the matter that the reference in the Torah is to meat and wine, there is an allusion to the matter in another verse, as it is stated: “Be not among wine drinkers [besovei], among gluttonous eaters [bezolelei] of meat” (Proverbs 23:20).",
+ "If he stole that which belonged to his father and ate on his father’s property, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on the property of others, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on his father’s property, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he steals that which belonged to his father and eats on the property of others. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he steals that which belonged to his father and that which belonged to his mother.",
+ "If his father wishes to have him punished but his mother does not wish that, or if his father does not wish to have him punished but his mother wishes that, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless they both wish that he be punished. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not suited for his father, the two being an inappropriate match, as the Gemara will explain, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. If one of the parents was without hands, or lame, or mute, or blind, or deaf, their son does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, as it is stated: “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him, and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place. And they shall say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deuteronomy 21:19–20). The Sages derive: “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him,” but not people without hands, who cannot do this. “And bring him out,” but not lame people, who cannot walk. “And they shall say,” but not mutes. “This son of ours,” but not blind people, who cannot point to their son and say “this.” “He will not obey our voices,” but not deaf people, who cannot hear whether or not he declined to obey them. After he is brought before the elders of the city, he is admonished before three people and then they flog him for having stolen. If he sins again, he is judged by a court of twenty-three judges, but he is not stoned unless the first three judges before whom he had been flogged are present there, as it is stated: “This son of ours,” this is the son who was already flogged before you. If the rebellious son ran away before he was sentenced, and afterward, before he was caught, his lower beard grew around, he is exempt from the death penalty. Once his lower beard grows around his genitals, he can no longer be judged as a stubborn and rebellious son. But if he ran away only after he was sentenced, and afterward, by the time he was caught, his lower beard had already grown around, he is liable to receive the death penalty. Once he is sentenced to death his sentence remains in force.",
+ "A stubborn and rebellious son is sentenced to death not because of the severity of the transgression that he already committed but on account of his ultimate end, because a boy of his nature will grow up to lead an immoral life, and it is better that he should die while he is still innocent, before causing excessive harm, and not die after he becomes guilty. This is because the death of the wicked is beneficial to them, because they can no longer sin, and it is also beneficial to the world, which is now rid of those who do it harm. Conversely, the death of the righteous is detrimental to them, as they can no longer engage in the performance of mitzvot, and it is also detrimental to the world, as the righteous are now absent from it. By way of association, the mishna continues: The wine and sleep of the wicked are beneficial to them and beneficial to the world, as when they are sleeping or under the influence of wine, they do not cause harm to others. And, conversely, the wine and sleep of the righteous are detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, as wine and sleep prevent them from engaging in their good deeds. The dispersal of the wicked, so that they are not found in close proximity to each other, is beneficial to them, as they are less likely to provoke each other to sin, and it is beneficial to the world. The dispersal of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world. The assembly of the wicked in one place is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, while the assembly of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world. The tranquility of the wicked is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, while the tranquility of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world.",
+ "A burglar who is found breaking into a house may be killed by the owner of the house with impunity (see Exodus 22:1). He too is sentenced on account of his ultimate end, as it is presumed that if the owner of the house would resist the burglar, the burglar would kill the owner of the house. If the burglar was breaking into a house, and in the course of doing so he broke a barrel, if there is blood-guiltiness for killing him, i.e., if the homeowner would be liable for killing him, the burglar is liable to pay for the value of the barrel. An example of this is if a father broke into his son’s house, in which case it is presumed that even if the son resists his father, his father would never kill him, and therefore the son may not kill his father, and if he does so he is liable. If there is no blood-guiltiness for killing him, i.e., if the homeowner would be exempt from punishment for killing him, the burglar is exempt from paying for the barrel.",
+ "And these are the ones who are saved from transgressing even at the cost of their lives; that is to say, these people may be killed so that they do not perform a transgression: One who pursues another to kill him, or pursues a male to sodomize him, or pursues a betrothed young woman to rape her. But with regard to one who pursues an animal to sodomize it, or one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat, or one who is going to engage in idol worship, they are not saved at the cost of their lives. Rather, they are forewarned not to transgress, and if they proceed to transgress after having been forewarned, they are brought to trial, and if they are found guilty, they are executed."
+ ],
+ [
+ "And these are the transgressors who are burned in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who engaged in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, and one who is the daughter of a priest and who committed adultery. Included in the category of the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter and the resulting execution by burning, there are: His daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, and the daughter of his son. Likewise, the following are also included in this category: Intercourse with the daughter of his wife, even though she is not his daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, as well as intercourse with his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The prohibition and punishment apply both in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her daughter, and in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her mother. And these are the transgressors who are killed by decapitation in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: The murderer; and the residents of an idolatrous city, all of whom engaged in idol worship. The mishna elaborates: In the case of a murderer who struck another with a stone or with iron, or held him in the water or in the fire, and the victim could not extricate himself from there and he died,the murderer is liable to be executed. If one pushed another into the water or into the fire and that person could have extricated himself from there but failed to do so, and he died, the one who pushed him is exempt from punishment by a court, as he caused the death but did not actually kill the victim. For the same reason, if one set a dog against another and the dog killed him, or if one set a snake against another and the snake killed him, the one who set the dog or the snake is exempt from punishment. If he imbedded the snake’s fangs into another and caused the snake to bite him and kill him, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to be executed, as he is a murderer, and the Rabbis exempt him, as they maintain that he indirectly caused the individual’s death. In the case of one who strikes another, whether he does so with a stone or with his fist, and the doctors assessed his condition, estimating that it would lead to death, and then his condition eased from what it was, and the doctors revised their prognosis and predicted that he would live, and thereafter his condition worsened and he died, the assailant is liable to be executed as a murderer. Rabbi Neḥemya says: He is exempt, as there is a basis for the matter of assuming that he is not liable. Since the victim’s condition eased in the interim, a cause other than the blow struck by the assailant ultimately caused his death. ",
+ "If one intended to kill an animal, and he killed a person standing adjacent to it, or if he intended to kill a gentile, for whose murder he is not liable to be executed in court, and he killed a Jew, or if he intended to kill non-viable newborns, for whose murder one is not liable, and he killed a viable person, the assailant is exempt from execution, since his intent was to kill one for whose murder he is not liable. If one intended to strike another on his loins, and the blow was not powerful enough to kill him if it were to land on his loins, but instead the blow landed on his chest over the victim’s heart, and it was powerful enough to kill him when it landed on his chest over his heart, and the victim died as a result of the blow, the assailant is exempt from execution, as he did not intend to strike the victim a blow that would cause his death. If he intended to strike him on his chest over his heart and the blow was powerful enough to kill him were it to land on his chest over his heart, and instead the blow landed on his loins, and it was not powerful enough to kill him when it landed on his loins, and nevertheless the victim died, the assailant is exempt. Although the assailant intended to kill the victim, the blow was not powerful enough to kill. Ostensibly, his death was not a result of the blow. If one intended to kill an adult and the blow was not powerful enough to kill the adult, and instead the blow landed on a minor, and the blow was powerful enough to kill the minor and the minor died, the assailant is exempt. If one intended to kill a minor and the blow was powerful enough to kill a minor, and the blow landed on an adult and the blow was not powerful enough to kill the adult, and nevertheless, the adult died, the assailant is exempt. But if one intended to strike another on his loins, and the blow was powerful enough to kill him were it to land on his loins, and instead the blow landed on his chest over his heart, and he died, the assailant is liable, since in any event, his intent was to kill the victim and the blow was powerful enough to kill him wherever it struck him. If one intended to strike an adult and the blow was powerful enough to kill the adult, and the blow landed on a minor and he died, the assailant is liable. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one intended to kill this one and he killed that one, although he would be liable for killing either, he is exempt, because one is executed only if his action completely corresponded with his intent.",
+ "With regard to a murderer who was intermingled with others and it is not possible to identify the murderer, all of them are exempt from liability to be executed. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court gathers them into the vaulted chamber [lakippa] where they will eventually die. With regard to all those liable to be executed with different court-imposed death penalties who became intermingled with each other and it cannot be determined which individual was sentenced to which death, they are all sentenced to the most lenient form of execution to which any of them was sentenced. In a case where those who are liable to be stoned were intermingled with those who are liable to be burned, Rabbi Shimon says: They are all sentenced to be executed by stoning, as burning is a more severe form of execution than stoning. And the Rabbis say: They are all sentenced to be executed by burning, as stoning is a more severe form of execution than burning. Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: If burning were not more severe than stoning, it would not have been administered to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. A betrothed daughter of an Israelite who committed adultery is executed by stoning. If burning were not a more severe form of execution than stoning, it would not have been administered to the daughter of a priest who committed adultery, who would presumably receive a more severe punishment. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: If stoning were not more severe than burning it would not have been the death penalty administered to a blasphemer and to an idol worshipper, as their actions violate the very core of the Jewish faith. There is a parallel dispute: In a case where those who are liable to be killed by beheading were intermingled with those who are liable to be strangled, Rabbi Shimon says: They are all sentenced to be beheaded with a sword, as strangulation is a more severe form of execution than beheading. And the Rabbis say: They are all sentenced to be executed by strangulation, as beheading is a more severe form of execution than strangulation. ",
+ "One who is liable to be executed with two different court-imposed death penalties, as he violated two different capital transgressions, is sentenced to the more severe form of execution. If one violated one transgression for which he is liable to receive two death penalties, e.g., if one engaged in intercourse with his mother-in-law, who is also a married woman, he is sentenced to the more severe form of execution. Rabbi Yosei says: He is sentenced to the form of execution that he is liable to receive due to the first relationship that came upon him, i.e., if she was his mother-in-law before she was married, he is executed by burning; if she was married before she was his mother-in-law, he is punished by strangulation. ",
+ "One who was flogged for violating a prohibition and then repeated the violation and was flogged again assumes the status of a forewarned transgressor. The court places him into the vaulted chamber [lakippa] and feeds him barley bread until his belly ruptures due to the low-quality food, and he dies. With regard to one who kills a person not in the presence of witnesses and it is impossible to judge him in court, the court places him into a vaulted chamber and feeds him sparing bread and scant water (see Isaiah 30:20).",
+ "With regard to one who steals a kasva, and one who curses with a sorcerer, and one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots strike him and kill him. Although the Torah does not say that one who performs one of these actions is liable to be executed, it is permitted for anyone who zealously takes the vengeance of the Lord to do so. In the case of a priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity, his priestly brethren do not bring him to court for judgment; rather, the young men of the priesthood remove him from the Temple courtyard and pierce his skull with pieces of wood. In the case of a non-priest who performed the service in the Temple, Rabbi Akiva says: His execution is by strangulation, and the Rabbis say: He is not executed with a court-imposed death penalty; rather, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven."
+ ],
+ [
+ "All of the Jewish people, even sinners and those who are liable to be executed with a court-imposed death penalty, have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, for My name to be glorified” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the exceptions, the people who have no share in the World-to-Come, even when they fulfilled many mitzvot: One who says: There is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah, and one who says: The Torah did not originate from Heaven, and an epikoros, who treats Torah scholars and the Torah that they teach with contempt. Rabbi Akiva says: Also included in the exceptions are one who reads external literature, and one who whispers invocations over a wound and says as an invocation for healing: “Every illness that I placed upon Egypt I will not place upon you, for I am the Lord, your Healer” (Exodus 15:26). By doing so, he shows contempt for the sanctity of the name of God and therefore has no share in the World-to-Come. Abba Shaul says: Also included in the exceptions is one who pronounces the ineffable name of God as it is written, with its letters. ",
+ "Three prominent kings mentioned in the Bible and four prominent commoners who are described in the Bible as men of great wisdom have no share in the World-to-Come. The three kings are: Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and Ahab, both of whom were kings of Israel, and Manasseh, king of Judea. Rabbi Yehuda says: Manasseh has a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated concerning Manasseh: “And he prayed to Him, and He received his entreaty, and heard his supplication and brought him back to Jerusalem unto his kingdom” (II Chronicles 33:13), indicating that he repented wholeheartedly and effectively. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: He regretted his actions, and his repentance was effective to the extent that God restored him to his kingdom, but God did not restore him to his share in life in the World-to-Come. The four commoners are: Balaam, son of Beor; Doeg the Edomite; Ahithophel; and Gehazi.",
+ "The members of the generation of the flood have no share in the World-to-Come and will not stand in judgment at the end of days, as it is stated: “My soul shall not abide [yadon] in man forever” (Genesis 6:3); neither will they stand in judgment [din] nor shall their souls be restored to them. The members of the generation of the dispersion have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8), and it is written: “And from there did the Lord scatter them upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9). “And the Lord scattered them” indicates in this world; “and from there did the Lord scatter them” indicates for the World-to-Come. The people of Sodom have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly” (Genesis 13:13). “Wicked” indicates in this world; “and sinners” indicates for the World-to-Come. But they will stand in judgment and they will be sentenced to eternal contempt. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Both these, the people of Sodom, and those, the members of the generation of the flood, will not stand in judgment, as it is stated: “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5). “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”; this is referring to the generation of the flood, about whom it is written: “The wickedness of man was great upon the earth” (Genesis 6:5). “Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”; these are the people of Sodom, about whom it is written: “And the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners” (Genesis 13:13). The Sages said to Rabbi Neḥemya: They will not stand in judgment for resurrection in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in judgment in the congregation of the wicked. The spies who spread an evil report of their visit to Canaan have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And those men who spread the evil report about the land died by plague before the Lord” (Numbers 14:37). “And…died” indicates in this world; “by plague” indicates for the World-to-Come. The members of the generation of the wilderness have no share in the World-to-Come and will not stand in judgment, as it is stated: “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:35). “They shall be consumed” indicates in this world; “and there they shall die” indicates for the World-to-Come; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: The members of the generation of the wilderness were essentially righteous, and about them the verse says: “Gather My pious together to Me, those that have entered into My covenant by offering” (Psalms 50:5). It is they who entered into the covenant with God and they will certainly be rewarded in the future. The assembly of Korah is not destined to arise for resurrection, as it is stated: “And the earth closed upon them” (Numbers 16:33), meaning in this world, and also: “And they perished from among the assembly” (Numbers 16:33), meaning in the World-to-Come; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: About them the verse says: “The Lord kills and makes alive; He lowers to the grave, and raises” (I Samuel 2:6), indicating that the assembly of Korah has a share in the World-to-Come. The ten tribes are not destined to return to Eretz Yisrael, even during the messianic era, as it is stated: “And He cast them into another land, as it is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:27). Just as the day passes never to return, so too, the ten tribes go into exile and do not return; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: “As it is this day,” meaning just as the day darkens and then the sky brightens the next day, with regard to the ten tribes as well, although it is dark for them now, so it is destined to brighten for them.",
+ "The residents of an idolatrous city have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Certain men, wicked persons, are gone out from your midst, and have subverted the inhabitants of their city, saying: Let us go and let us worship other gods” (Deuteronomy 13:14). And idol worshippers are not executed as residents of an idolatrous city unless its subverters are from that city and from that tribe, and unless most of the inhabitants of the city are subverted, and unless men subvert the inhabitants of the city. If it occurs that women or children subvert the inhabitants of the city, or that a minority of the inhabitants of the city were subverted, or that its subverters were from outside the city and were neither residents of that city nor members of that tribe, these idol worshippers are judged as individuals. And to judge the inhabitants of a city one requires two witnesses and forewarning for each and every one who engaged in idol worship. This is a stringency with regard to individuals who worship idols that is more stringent than the halakha with regard to multitudes who worship idols: As the individuals who worship idols are executed by stoning; therefore, since there is a stringency with regard to their mode of execution, their property is spared and is inherited by their heirs. And the multitudes are executed by the sword; therefore, since there is a leniency with regard to their mode of execution, their property is eliminated. ",
+ "From the verse: “You shall smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy 13:16), it is derived that the caravan of donkeys and the caravan of camels that move from place to place, these donkey or camel drivers save the city. If they were residing in the city for a period, they could join the minority of permanent residents who were not subverted to idol worship in order to create a majority and prevent the destruction of the city and its contents. It is stated: “Destroy it utterly, and all that is in it and its animals, with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy 13:16). From here, the Sages stated: The property of the righteous, who did not engage in idol worship, that is inside the city is destroyed with the rest of the city and its contents; but the property of the righteous that is outside the city is spared. And the property of the wicked, whether it is inside the city or whether it is outside the city, these items are destroyed. ",
+ "“And you shall gather all of its spoils into the midst of its square” (Deuteronomy 13:17). If the city has no square, one creates a square for the city in order to fulfill the mitzva as it is written. If there was a square outside of the city, they bring it inside the city by expanding the city wall to include the square. It is stated in the continuation of the verse: “And you shall burn it with fire, both the city and all its spoils, entirely for the Lord your God.” The mishna infers: “Its spoils,” but not the spoils of Heaven. From here the Sages stated: The consecrated property in it, which was no longer the property of its inhabitants, must be redeemed, and terumot are neither eaten nor burned; rather they must be left to decay. And second tithe and sacred scrolls that were in the city must be interred. With regard to the phrase: “Entirely [kalil] for the Lord your God,” Rabbi Shimon says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If you implement judgment on an idolatrous city, I ascribe you credit as though you have sacrificed an entirely [kalil] burnt offering before Me. It is written: “And it shall be a heap forever” (Deuteronomy 13:17), meaning: The idolatrous city shall not be converted even into gardens and orchards; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: From the end of that verse: “It shall not be built again,” it is derived: To restore it to the way it was before destruction, it may not be built; but it may be converted into gardens and orchards. The next verse states: “And there shall cleave nothing of that which was devoted to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). This teaches that as long as the wicked exist in the world, there is wrath in the world; once the wicked are eliminated from the world, wrath leaves the world."
+ ],
+ [
+ "These are the transgressors who are strangled in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who strikes his father or his mother, and one who abducts a Jewish person, and a rebellious elder according to the court, and a false prophet, and one who prophesies in the name of idol worship, and one who engages in intercourse with a married woman, and conspiring witnesses who testify that the daughter of a priest committed adultery, even though were she guilty, she would be executed by burning. And her paramour is also executed via strangulation as in any case where a man engages in intercourse with a married woman. One who strikes his father or his mother is not liable to be executed unless he wounds one of them. This is a stringency with regard to one who curses his father that is more severe than the halakha with regard to one who strikes his father, as one who curses his father or his mother after his or her death is liable, but one who strikes one of them after his or her death is exempt, as he did not cause a wound. gemara The Sages taught in a baraita that it is written: “For any man who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death, he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him who curses his father and his mother shall die; he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him” (Leviticus 20:9). This is referring to one who curses his parents even after their death, as one might have thought: Since one is liable for striking and one is liable for cursing, just as one who strikes is liable only when his father or mother are alive, so too, one who curses is liable only when they are alive. One who abducts a Jewish person is not liable to be executed unless he brings the abductee into his domain. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is not liable unless he brings him into his domain and exploits him, as it is stated: “If a man shall be found abducting a person of his brethren from the children of Israel, and he exploited him and sold him, then that abductor shall die” (Deuteronomy 24:7). The phrase “exploited him” indicates using him for labor. With regard to one who abducts his own son and sells him, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. If one abducted one who is a half-slave half-freeman, i.e., a Canaanite slave who belonged to two owners and was emancipated by one of them, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.",
+ "A rebellious elder according to the court, who does not observe the ruling of the court, is executed by strangulation, as it is stated: “If there shall be a matter too hard for you in judgment…and you shall arise and ascend unto the place that the Lord your God shall choose…and you shall do according to the matter that they shall declare unto you…and the man that shall do so intentionally, not to listen…and that man shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:8–12). There were three courts there in Jerusalem. One convenes at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and one convenes at the entrance to the Temple courtyard, and one convenes in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. An elder who issues a ruling contrary to the ruling of his colleagues and his colleagues come to that court that is at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and the elder says: This is what I interpreted and that is what my colleagues interpreted; this is what I taught and that is what my colleagues taught. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling in that case, the court says it to them. And if not, they come to those judges who are convened at the entrance to the Temple courtyard, which is a more significant tribunal. And the elder says: This is what I interpreted and that is what my colleagues interpreted; this is what I taught and that is what my colleagues taught. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling in that case, the court says it to them. And if not, these judges and those judges come to the High Court, the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges that is in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, from which Torah emerges to the entire Jewish people, as it is stated: “And you shall do according to the matter that they shall declare unto you from that place that the Lord shall choose and you shall observe to perform according to all that they shall teach you” (Deuteronomy 17:10). They are the ultimate arbiters who establish the halakha that is binding. If they ruled contrary to the ruling of the elder and the elder then returned to his city, and nevertheless, he taught in the manner that he was teaching previously, he is exempt from punishment. But if he instructed others to act on the basis of his ruling that stands contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, he is liable to be executed, as it is stated: “And the man that shall do so intentionally not to listen” (Deuteronomy 17:12), meaning that one is not liable unless he instructs others to act. A student who is not yet an elder, i.e., he has not been ordained, who instructs others to act contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, is exempt, as a ruling given prior to ordination is not a valid ruling. It follows that his stringency is his leniency. The stringency imposed upon the student that he is not sanctioned to issue rulings results in the leniency that if he instructs others to act on the basis of his ruling that is contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, he is exempt.",
+ "With regard to the rulings of the rebellious elder the mishna states: There is greater stringency with regard to traditional rabbinic interpretations of the Torah than with regard to matters of Torah. If one states: There is no mitzva to don phylacteries, and his intention is in order to have others violate matters of Torah, he is exempt from punishment as a rebellious elder. One who disputes matters written explicitly in the Torah is not considered an elder and a Torah scholar, and therefore does not assume the status of a rebellious elder. If, however, he disputed a matter based on rabbinic tradition, e.g., he stated that there should be five compartments in the phylacteries of the head, in order to add an extra compartment to the four established according to traditional rabbinic interpretations of the Torah, he is liable.",
+ "One does not execute the rebellious elder, neither in the court that is in his city, nor in the court that is in Yavne, although that was the seat of the Sanhedrin after the destruction of the Second Temple. Rather, one takes him up to the High Court in Jerusalem. And they guard him in incarceration until the pilgrimage Festival, and the court executes him during the pilgrimage Festival, as it is stated: “And all the nation shall hear, and fear, and no longer sin intentionally” (Deuteronomy 17:13); this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not delay administering justice to this individual. Rather, the court executes him immediately, and the judges write reports and dispatch agents to all the places, informing them: So-and-so is liable to be punished with the court-imposed death penalty for disobeying the court.",
+ "The false prophet mentioned in the Torah includes one who prophesies that which he did not hear from God and one who prophesies that which was not said to him, even if it was said to another prophet. In those cases, his execution is at the hand of man, through strangulation imposed by the court. But with regard to one who suppresses his prophecy because he does not want to share it with the public, and one who contemptuously forgoes the statement of a prophet and refuses to heed it, and a prophet who violated his own statement and failed to perform that which he was commanded to do, his death is at the hand of Heaven, as it is stated: “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not hearken unto My words that he shall speak in My name, I will exact it of him” (Deuteronomy 18:19).",
+ "One who prophesies in the name of idol worship and says: This is what the idol said, even if he approximated the correct halakha in the name of the idol to deem ritually impure that which is ritually impure and to deem ritually pure that which is ritually pure, is executed by strangulation. In the case of one who engages in intercourse with a married woman once she entered her husband’s domain for the purposes of marriage, even if the marriage was not yet consummated, as she did not yet engage in intercourse with him, one who engages in intercourse with her is executed by strangulation. Before marriage, one who engages in intercourse with her is liable to be executed by stoning. And conspiring witnesses who testified that the daughter of a priest committed adultery are executed by strangulation, even though were she guilty, she would be executed by burning. And her paramour is also executed by strangulation, as in any case where one engages in intercourse with a married woman. As all those who are rendered conspiring witnesses are led to their deaths via the same mode of execution with which they conspired to have their victim executed, except for conspiring witnesses who testified that the daughter of a priest and her paramour committed adultery. In that case, although the priest’s daughter who commits adultery is executed by burning, the conspiring witnesses who sought to have her executed are executed by strangulation, as is the paramour whom they also conspired to have executed."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "versions": [
+ [
+ "William Davidson Edition - English",
+ "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/Hebrew/Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/Hebrew/Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1bfef22d5a4a06d29237e094f796673cf8f6f446
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/Hebrew/Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri.json
@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+{
+ "language": "he",
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "versionSource": "https://archive.org/details/MishnaCorrectedKaufman00WHOLE",
+ "versionTitle": "Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "PD",
+ "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+ "actualLanguage": "he",
+ "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+ "isSource": true,
+ "isPrimary": true,
+ "direction": "rtl",
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "א\nדִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nגְּזֵלוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nנֶזֶק וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק, \nתַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, \nהָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וְהַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, \nבִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nהַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, \nשֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ דִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. \n",
+ "ב\nמַכּוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nעִבּוּר הַחֹדֶשׁ, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nעִבּוּר הַשָּׁנָה בִשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: \nבִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מַתְחִילִים, \nוּבַחֲמִשָּׁה נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין, \nוְגוֹמְרִין בְּשִׁבְעָה. \nוְאִם גָּמַר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, מְעֻבֶּרֶת. \n",
+ "ג\nסְמִיכַת הַזְּקֵנִים וַעֲרִיפַת הָעֲגָלָה בִשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nבַּחֲמִשָּׁה. \nחֲלִיצָה וּמֵאוּנִים, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nנֶטַע רְבָעִי, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין דָּמָיו יְדוּעִין, \nבִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nוְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nוְהָעֲרָכִים וְהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nוְאֶחָד מֵהֶן כֹּהֵן. \nוּבַקַּרְקָעוֹת, \nתִּשְׁעָה וְכֹהֵן, וְאָדָן כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן. \n",
+ "ד\nדִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nהָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא כ,טז) \n\"וְהָרַגְתָּ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה\", \nוְאוֹמֵר: (ויקרא כ,טו) \n\"וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה תַּהֲרֹגוּ\". \nשׁוֹר נִסְקָל בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כא,כט) \n\"הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת\", \nכְּמִיתַת הַבְּעָלִים, כָּךְ מִיתַת הַשּׁוֹר. \nהָאֲרִי וְהַדֹּב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַפַּרְדְּלֵס וְהַנָּחָשׁ, \nמִיתָתָן בְּעֶשְׂרִין וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nרְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: \nכָּל הַקּוֹדֵם לְהָרְגָן, זָכָה. \nרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: \nמִיתָתָן בְּעֶשְׂרִין וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \n",
+ "ה\nאֵין דָּנִים לֹא אֶת הַשֵּׁבֶט, \nוְלֹא אֶת נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר, \nוְלֹא אֶת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, \nאֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁלְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. \nוְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת, \nאֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁלְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. \nאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת, \nאֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁלְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. \nוְאֵין עוֹשִׂין סֶנְהֶדְרִיּוֹת לִשְׁבָטִין, \nאֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁלְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. \nוְאֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, \nאֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁלְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. \nאֵין עִיר נִדַּחַת בִּסְפָר, \nוְלֹא שָׁלוֹשׁ עִיר נִדַּחַת, \nאֲבָל עוֹשִׂין אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם. \n",
+ "ו\nסַנְהֶדְרִין גְּדוֹלָה הָיְתָה שֶׁלְּשִׁבְעִין וְאֶחָד, \nקְטַנָּה שֶׁלְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nמְנַיִן לִגְדוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלְּשִׁבְעִין וְאֶחָד? \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (במדבר יא,טז) \n\"אֶסְפָה לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל\", \nוּמֹשֶׂה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶם, הֲרֵי שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nשִׁבְעִין. \nוּמְנַיִן לִקְטַנָּה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלְּעֶשְׂרִין וּשְׁלֹשָׁה? \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (במדבר לה,כד-כה) \n\"וְשָׁפְטוּ הָעֵדָה\", \"וְהִצִּילוּ הָעֵדָה\", \nעֵדָה שׁוֹפֶטֶת וְעֵדָה מַצֶּלֶת, \nהֲרֵי עֶשְׂרִין. \nוּמְנַיִן לָעֵדָה שֶׁהִיא עֲשָׂרָה? \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (במדבר יד,כז) \n\"עַד מָתַי לָעֵדָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת\", \nיָצָא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב. \n\nז\nוּמְנַיִן לְהָבִיא עוֹד שְׁלֹשָׁה? \nמִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כג, ב) \n\"לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְרָעֹת\", \nשׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁאָמַר, הֱיֵה עִמָּהֶן לְטוֹבָה, <הָיָה>\nוְאִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר: (שמות כג, ב) \n\"אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת\" ? \nלֹא כְהַטּוֹתָךְ לְטוֹבָה הַטּוֹתָךְ לְרָעָה: \nהַטּוֹתָךְ לְטוֹבָה, עַל פִּי אֶחָד, \nוּלְרָעָה, עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. \nוְאֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁקוּל, <וְאִם אֵין>\nמוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד, \nהֲרֵי עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nכַּמָּה יְהֵא בָעִיר וּתְהֵי רְאוּיָה לְסֶנְהֶדְרִין? \nמֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִין. \nרְבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: \nמָאתַיִם וּשְׁלשִׁין, \nכְּדֵי שָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרוֹת. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל דָּן וְדָנִים אוֹתוֹ, \nמֵעִיד וּמְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ, \nוְחוֹלֵץ וְחוֹלְצִים לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, \nוּמְיַבְּמִים אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, \nאֲבָל הוּא אֵינוּ מְיַבֵּם, \nמִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בְּאַלְמָנָה. \nמֵת לוֹ מֵת, \nאֵינוּ יוֹצֵא אַחַר הַמִּטָּה, \nאֶלָּא הֵן נִכְסִים וְהוּא נִגְלֶה, \nהֵן נִכְסִין וְהוּא נִגְלֶה, \nוְיוֹצֵא עִמָּהֶן עַד פֶּתַח הָעִיר. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאֵינוּ יוֹצֵא מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא כא,יב) \n\"וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא\". \n\nב\nכְּשֶׁהוּא מְנַחֵם אֶת אֲחֵרִים, \nדֶּרֶךְ כָּל הָעָם עוֹבְרִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה, \nוְהַמְמֻנֶּה מְמַצְּעוֹ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הָעָם. \nכְּשֶׁהוּא מִתְנַחֵם מֵאֲחֵרִים, \nכָּל הָעָם אוֹמְרִין לוֹ: \n\"אָנוּ כַפָּרָתָךְ\", \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"תִּתְבָּרְכוּ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם!\" \nוּכְשֶׁמַּבְרִין אוֹתוֹ, \nכָל הָעָם מְסֻבִּין עַל הָאָרֶץ, \nוְהוּא מֵסֵב עַל הַסַּפְסֵל. \n",
+ "ג\nהַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא דָן וְלֹא דָנִין אוֹתוֹ, \nלֹא מֵעִיד וְלֹא מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ, \nלֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא חוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, \nוְלֹא מְיַבֵּם וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִים אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאִם רָצָה לַחֲלוֹץ וּלְיַבֵּם, זָכוּר לַטּוֹב. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nאִם רָצָה, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. \nוְאֵין נוֹשְׂאִין אַלְמַנְתּוֹ. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nנוֹשֵׂא הוּא הַמֶּלֶךְ אַלְמַנְתּוֹ שֶׁלַּמֶּלֶךְ, \nשֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְדָוִד שֶׁנָּשָׂא אַלְמַנְתּוֹ שֶׁלְּשָׁאוּל, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמואל ב יב,ח) \n\"וָאֶתְּנָה לָךְ אֶת בֵּית אֲדוֹנֶיךָ, \nוְאֶת נְשֵׁי אֲדוֹנֶיךָ בְחֵיקֶךָ\". \n",
+ "ד\nמֵת לוֹ מֵת, \nאֵינוּ יוֹצֵא מִפֶּתַח פָּלָטוֹרִין שֶׁלּוֹ. <פָּלָטוֹרִין: praetorium> \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאִם רָצָה לָצֵאת אַחַר הַמִּטָּה, יֵצֵא, \nשֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְדָוִד, \nשֶׁיָּצָא אַחֲרֵי מִטָּתוֹ שֶׁלְּאַבְנֵר, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמואל ב ג,לא) \n\"וְהַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד הֹלֵךְ אַחֲרֵי הַמִּטָּה\". \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nלֹא הָיָה הַדָּבָר אֶלָּא לְפַיֵּס. \nוּכְשֶׁמַּבְרִים אוֹתוֹ, \nכָּל הָעָם מְסֻבִּין עַל הָאָרֶץ, \nוְהוּא מֵסֵב עַל הַדַּרְגֵּשׁ. \n",
+ "ה\nוּמוֹצִיא לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת, \nעַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁלְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. \nוּפוֹרֵץ לַעֲשׁוֹת לוֹ דֶרֶךְ, \nוְאֵין מְמַחִין בְּיָדוֹ; \nדֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין לָהּ שֵׁעוּר. \nוְכָל הָעָם בּוֹזְזִין וְנוֹתְנִין לְפָנָיו, \nוְהוּא נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ. \n\nו\n\"לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ נָשִׁים\", \nאֶלָּא שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nמַרְבֶּה הוּא לוֹ, \nוּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מְסִירוֹת אֶת לִבּוֹ. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nאֲפִלּוּ אַחַת וְהִיא מְסִירָה אֶת לִבּוֹ, \nהֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂאֶנָּה. \nאִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר: (דברים יז,יז) \n\"וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ נָשִׁים\"? \nאֲפִלּוּ כַּאֲבִיגַיִל. \n\nז\n\"לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ סוּסִים\" (דברים יז,טז) \nאֶלָּא כְדֵי מֶרְכַּבְתּוֹ. \n(דברים יז,יז) \"וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ\", \nאֶלָּא כְדֵי שֶׁיִּתֵּן אֶפְסֶנְיָא. \nוְכוֹתֵב לוֹ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה לִשְׁמוֹ. \nיוֹצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה, וְהִיא עִמּוֹ; \nנִכְנָס, וְהִיא עִמּוֹ; \nוְיוֹשֵׁב בַּדִּין וְהִיא אֶצְלוֹ; \nמֵסֵב וְהִיא כְנֶגְדּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יז,יט) \n\"וְהָיְתָה עִמּוֹ, וְקָרָא בוֹ כָל יְמֵי חַיָּיו\". \n",
+ "ח\nאֵין רוֹכְבִין עַל סוּסוֹ, \nוְאֵין יוֹשְׁבִין עַל כִּסְאוֹ, \nוְאֵין מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּשַׁרְבִיטוֹ, \nוְאֵין רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ עָרֹם \nאֶלָּא כְשֶׁהוּא מִסְתַּפֵּר, \nוְלֹא בְּבֵית הַמַּרְחֵץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יז,טו) \n\"שׁוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ\", \nשֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nדִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה; \nזֶה בוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד וְזֶה בוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד, \nוּשְׁנֵיהֶם בּוֹרְרִים לָהֶם עוֹד אֶחָד. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nשְׁנֵי דַיָּנִין בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד. \n\nב\nזֶה פוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה וְזֶה פוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה. <דִּיינוֹ> \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nאֵמָתַי? \nבִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִין אוֹ פְסוּלִין, \nאֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִין אוֹ מֻמְחִין מִפִּי בֵית דִּין,\nאֵינוּ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן. \n\nג\nזֶה פוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁלָּזֶה וְזֶה פוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁלָּזֶה. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nאֵמָתַי? \nבִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִין אוֹ פְסוּלִין, \nאֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים, \nאֵינוּ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן. \n",
+ "ד\nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אַבָּא\", \n\"נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אָבִיךָ\", \n\"נֶאֱמָנִין עָלַי שְׁלֹשָׁה רוֹעֵי בָקָר\", \nרְבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: \nיָכוֹל הוּא לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nאֵינוּ יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ. \n\nה\nהָיָה חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁבוּעָה, \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"דּוּר לִי בְחַיֵּי רֹאשָׁךְ\", \nרְבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: \nיָכוֹל הוּא לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nאֵינוּ יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ. \n",
+ "ו\nוְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִין: \nהַמְשַׂחֵק בַּקֻּבְיָא, \nהַמַּלְוֶה בָרִבִּית, \nוּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, \nוְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. \nאָמַר רְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: \nמִתְּחִלָּה לֹא הָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא אֲסֻפֵּי שְׁבִיעִית; \nמִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָאַנָּסִים, חָזְרוּ לִקְרוֹתָן סוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. \nאָמַר רְבִּי יְהוּדָה: \nאֶמָּתַי? \nבִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֻמָּנוּת אֶלָּא הִיא, \nאֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ אֻמָּנוּת שֶׁלֹּא הִיא, כְּשֵׁרִין. \n",
+ "ז\nוְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַקְּרוֹבִין: \n[אָבִיו, וְ]אֶחָיו, וַאֲחֵי אָבִיו, וַאֲחֵי אִמּוֹ, \nוּבַעַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, \nוּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וּבַעַל אִמּוֹ, \nוְחָמִיו, וַאֲגִיסוֹ, \nהֵן וּבְנֵיהֶן וַחֲתְָנֵיהֶן, \nוְחוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. \nאָמַר רְבִּי יוֹסֵה: \nזוֹ מִשְׁנַת רְבִּי עֲקִיבָה ; \nאֲבָל מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה: \nדּוֹדוֹ וּבֶן דּוֹדוֹ, \nוְכָל הָרָאוּי לוֹ לִירֻשָּׁה. \nוְכָל הַקָּרוֹב לוֹ בְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. \nהָיָה קָרוֹב וְנִתְרַחַק, כָּשֵׁר. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאֲפִלּוּ מֵתָה בִתּוֹ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָנִים מִמֶּנָּה, \nהֲרֵי זֶה קָרוֹב. \n",
+ "ח\nהָאוֹהֵב וְהַשּׂוֹנֵא. \nאֵי זֶה הוּא האוֹהֵב? \nשׁוֹשְׁבִינוֹ. \nוְהַשּׂוֹנֵא? \nכָּל שֶׁלֹּא דִבֶּר עִמּוֹ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים בְּאֵיבָה. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nלֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל כָּךְ. \n",
+ "ט\nכֵּיצַד בּוֹדְקִים אֶת הָעֵדִים? \nהָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן, <אוֹתוֹ>\nוּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן לַחוּץ, \nוּמְשַׁיְּרִים אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן, \nוְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: \n\"אֱמֹר, הֵיאָךְ אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּב לַזֶּה?\" \nאִם אָמַר: \n\"הוּא אָמַר לִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ\", \n\"אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אָמַר לִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ\", \nלֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר: \n\"בְּפָנֵינוּ הוֹדָה לוֹ, \nשֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז.\" \n\nי\nהָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. \nאִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִים, \nנוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בַּדָּבָר. \nשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים \"זַכַּי\", \nוְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"חַיָּב\", \nזַכַּי. \nשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים \"חַיָּב\", \nוְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"זַכַּי\", \n[חַיָּב. \nאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"זַכַּי\", \nוְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"חַיָּב\",] \nוַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ שְׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִין, \nוְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר: \n\"אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ\", \nיוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּנִים. \n",
+ "יא\nגָּמְרוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר, \nהָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן. \nהַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּדַּיָּנִים אוֹמֵר: \n\"אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, אַתָּה זַכַּי\", \n\"אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, אַתָּה חַיָּב\". \nמְנַיִן, כְּשֶׁיֵּצֵא, לֹא יֹאמַר: \n\"אֲנִי הוּא מְזַכֶּה וַחֲבֵרַי מְחַיְּבִין, \nוּמָה אֶעֱשֶׂה וְרָבוּ עָלַי?\" \nעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: (משלי יא,יג) \n\"הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל מְגַלֶּה סּוֹד\". \n",
+ "יב\nכָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא רְאָיָה, \nהוּא סוֹתֵר אֶת הַדִּין. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \n\"כָּל רְאָיוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָךְ, <רְאִיּוֹת>\nהָבֵא מִכָּן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם\", \nהֵבִיא בְתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, \nסוֹתֵר, \nלְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, \nאֵינוּ סוֹתֵר. \nאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: \nמַה יַּעֲשֶׂה [זֶה שֶׁ]לֹּא מָצָא בְתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים, \nוּמָצָא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים? \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \n\"הָבֵא עֵדִים\", \nאָמַר: \n\"אֵין לִי עֵדִים\". \n\"הָבֵא רְאָיָה\", \nאָמַר: \n\"אֵין לִי רְאָיָה\", \nלְאַחַר זְמַן מָצָא עֵדִים וּמָצָא רְאָיָה, \nהֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָה כְלוּם. \n\nיג\nאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: \nמַה יַּעֲשֶׂה [זֶה שֶׁ]לֹּא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים, \nוּמָצָא עֵדִים? \nוְלֹא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ רְאָיָה, וּמָצָא רְאָיָה? \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \n\"הָבֵא עֵדִים\", \nאָמַר: \n\"אֵין לִי עֵדִים\"; \n\"הָבֵא רְאָיָה\", \nאָמַר: \n\"אֵין לִי רְאָיָה\"; \nרָאָה שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַיֵּב, וְאָמַר: \n\"קִרְבוּ אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְהַעִידוּנִי!\" \nאוֹ שֶׁהוֹצִיא רְאָיָה מִתּוֹךְ אֲפֻנְדָּתוֹ, \nהֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָה כְלוּם. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nאֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, \nבִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא כד,כב) \n\"מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם\". \nמַה בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת? \nדִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, \nוְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nדִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, \nפּוֹתְחִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, \nוְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, \nפּוֹתְחִין לִזְכוּת, וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לְחוֹבָה. \n\nב\nדִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּים עַל פִּי אֶחָד, <המגיה הוסיף מעל השורה \"עֵד\" לפני 'אחד', וכך גם להלן>\nבֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה; \nוְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד לִזְכוּת, \nוְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. \n\nג\nדִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, \nמַחְזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת וּבֵין לְחוֹבָה. \nוְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, \nמַחְזִירִין לִזְכוּת, וְאֵין מַחְזִירִין לְחוֹבָה. \n\nד\nדִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, \nהַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְחוֹבָה. \nוְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, \nהַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת, \nוְאֵין הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין חוֹבָה. \n\nה\nדִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, \nהַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, \nוְהַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת מְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. \nוְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, \nהַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, \nאֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת \nאֵינוּ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. \n\nו\nדִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, \nדָּנִים בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה. \nוְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, \nדָּנִים בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּיּוֹם. \n\nז\nדִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, \nגּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה. \nוְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, \nגּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם לִזְכוּת, \nוּבְיוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו לְחוֹבָה. <שֶׁלָּאַחֲרָיו>\nלְפִיכָךְ, אֵין דָּנִים \nלֹא בְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב. \n",
+ "ח\nדִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַטְּהָרוֹת וְהַטְּמָאוֹת, \nמַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל. \nוְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, \nמַתְחִילִים מִן הַצַּד. \nהַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, \nוְאֵין הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, \nאֶלָּא כֹהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם, \nוְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים הַמַּשִּׂיאִין לִכְהֻנָּה. \n",
+ "ט\nסַנְהֶדְרִין הָיְתָה כַחֲצִי גֹרֶן עֲגֻלָּה, \nכְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ רוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. \nוּשְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי דַיָּנִין עוֹמְדִין לִפְנֵיהֶן, \nאֶחָד מִיָּמִין וְאֶחָד מִן שְׂמֹאל, \nוְכוֹתְבִין דִּבְרֵי מְחַיְּבִין וְדִבְרֵי מְזַכִּין. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nשְׁלֹשָׁה הָיוּ, \nאֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי מְחַיְּבִין, \nוְאֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי מְזַכִּין, \nוְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי כוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי מְחַיְּבִין וְדִבְרֵי מְזַכִּין. \n",
+ "י\nוְשָׁלוֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁלְּתַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים יוֹשְׁבִין לִפְנֵיהֶן, \nכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מַכִּיר אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. \nצָרְכוּ לִסְמֹךְ, סוֹמְכִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. \nאֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנִיָּה בָּא לוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה, \nוְאֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּא לוֹ לַשְּׁנִיָּה, \nוּבוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד מִן הַקָּהָל, \nוּמוֹשִׁיבִין לוֹ בַשְּׁלִישִׁית. \nוְלֹא הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן, \nאֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לוֹ. \n",
+ "יא\nכֵּיצַד מְאַיְּמִים עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת? \nהָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן: \n\"שֶׁמֵּא תֹאמְרוּ מֵעֹמֶד, וּמִשְּׁמוּעָה, \nעֵד מִפִּי עֵד, \"אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שָׁמַעְנוּ\", \nאוֹ שֶׁמֵּא אֵין אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין, <שֶׁאֵין>\nשֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לִבְדֹּק אֶתְכֶם בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה. \nהֱיוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁלֹּא כְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת: <כְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת>\nדִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, \nאָדָן נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. \nוְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, \nדָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעָיוֹתָיו תְּלוּיִם בּוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם. \nשֶׁכָּךְ מָצִינוּ בְקַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (בראשית ד,י) \n\"קוֹל דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים אֵלַי מִן הָאֲדָמָה\". \nאֵינוּ אוֹמֵר 'דַּם אָחִיךָ', אֶלָּא \"דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ\", \nדָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעָיוֹתָיו. \nדָּבָר אַחֵר: \n\"דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ\", \nשֶׁהָיָה דָמוֹ מֻשְׁלָךְ עַל הָעֵצִים וְעַל הָאֲבָנִים. \n\nיב\nלְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יָחִיד בָּעוֹלָם, \nלְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת, \nמַעֲלִין עָלָיו כְּאִלּוּ אִבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא. <כִּילּוּ> \nוְכָל הַמְקַיֵּם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת, \nמַעֲלִין עָלָיו כְּאִלּוּ קִיֵּם עוֹלָם מָלֵא. <כִּילּוּ> \nמִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, \nשֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ: \n\"אַבָּא גָדוֹל מֵאָבִיךָ\". \nשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הַמִּינִים אוֹמְרִים: <'המינים' מחוק>\n\"רְשׁוּיוֹת הַרְבֵּה בַּשָּׁמַיִם.\" \n\nיג\nלְהַגִּיד גְּדֻלָּתוֹ שֶׁלְּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקֹּדֶשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, <הַקָּ'בָּ'הֻ'>\nשֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ מֵאָה מַטְבֵּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד, \nוְכֻלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, \nוּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקֹּדֶשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא <הַקָּ'בָּ'הֻ'>\nטָבַע אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁלָּאָדָן הָרִאשׁוֹן, \nוְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. \nלְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּב לוֹמַר: \n\"בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם.\" \n\nיד\nשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ: \n\"מַה לָּנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת?\" \nוַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר: (ויקרא ה,א) \n\"וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע, \nאִם לוֹא יַגִּיד, וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ.\"\nאוֹ שֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ: \n\"מַה לָּנוּ לְחַיֵּב בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה?\" \nוַהֲלֹא נֶאֱמַר: (משלי יא,י) \n\"וּבַאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה\". \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nהָיוּ בוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת: \n\"בְּאֵי זֶה שָׁבוּעַ? \nבְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁנָה? \nבְּאֵי זֶה חֹדֶשׁ? \nבְּכַמָּה בַחֹדֶשׁ? \nבְּאֵי זֶה יוֹם? \nבְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁעָה? \nוּבְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם?\" \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: \nאַף בְּאֵי זֶה יוֹם וּבְאֵי זוֹ שָׁעָה וּבְאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם. \n\"מַכִּירִין אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ? \nהִתְרֵיתֶם בּוֹ?\" \nהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, \n\"אֶת מָה עָבַד? \nוּבַמָּה עָבַד?\" \n",
+ "ב\nכָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה בְדִיקוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה מִשְׁתַּבֵּחַ. <מַשְׁתַּבֵּיַח> \nמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּדַק בֶּן זַכַּי בְּעָקְצֵי תְאֵנִים. \nוּמַה בֵּין חֲקִירוֹת לִבְדִיקוֹת? \nאֶלָּא שֶׁבַּחֲקִירוֹת, \nאָמַר אֶחָד \"אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ\", \nוּשְׁנַיִם אָמְרוּ \"אֵין יוֹדְעִין\", \nעֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. \nוּבַבְּדִיקוֹת, \nאוֹמֵר אֶחָד \"אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ\", \nוּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים \"אֵין יוֹדְעִין\",\nעֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת. \nאֶחָד חֲקִירוֹת וְאֶחָד בְּדִיקוֹת, \nבִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מַכְחִישִׁים זֶה אֶת זֶה, \nעֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. \n",
+ "ג\nאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"בִּשְׁנַיִם בַּחֹדֶשׁ\", \nוְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה\", \nעֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת, \nשֶׁזֶּה יָדַע עִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁלַּחֹדֶשׁ, \nוְזֶה לֹא יָדַע. \nאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה\", \nוְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"בַּחֲמִשָּׁה\", \nעֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. \nאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׁעוֹת\", \nוְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"בְּשָׁלוֹשׁ\", \nעֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת. \nאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"בְּשָׁלוֹשׁ\", \nוְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"בְּחָמֵשׁ\", \nעֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nקַיֶּמֶת. \nאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"בְּחָמֵשׁ\", \nוְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"בְּשֶׁבַע\", \nעֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, \nשֶׁבְּחָמֵשׁ הַחַמָּה בַמִּזְרָח, \nוּבְשֶׁבַע הַחַמָּה בַמַּעֲרָב. \n",
+ "ד\nהָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. \nנִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶן מְכֻוָּנִין, \nפּוֹתְחִין בִּזְכוּת. \nאָמַר אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים: \n\"יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו חוֹבָה\", \nמְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. \nאָמַר אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים: \n\"יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת\", \nמַעֲלִין וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ עִמָּהֶן, \nוְלֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד מִשָּׁם כָּל הַיּוֹם. \nאִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו, \nשׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. \nאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר: \n\"יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת\", <עַצְמוֹ>\nשׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו. \n",
+ "ה\nאִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, \nפְּטָרוּהוּ, \nוְאִם לָאו, \nמַעֲבִירִין דִּינוֹ לְמָחָר. \nוּמִזְדַּוְּגִין זוֹגוֹת זוֹגוֹת, \nוּמְמַעֲטִין בְּמַאֲכָל, \nוְלֹא הָיוּ שׁוֹתִין יַיִן כָּל הַיּוֹם, \nוְנוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בַּדָּבָר כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, \nוּלְמָחֳרָת מַשְׁכִּימִין וּבָאִין לְבֵית דִּין. \nוְהַמְזַכֶּה אוֹמֵר: \n\"אֲנִי הוּא מְזַכֶּה, וּמְזַכֶּה אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי\". \nוְהַמְחַיֵּב אוֹמֵר: \n\"אֲנִי הוּא מְחַיֵּב, וּמְחַיֵּב אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי\". \nהַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, \nאֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, \nאֵינוּ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. \nוְאִם טָעוּ בַדָּבָר, <תָּעוּ>\nסוֹפְרֵי דַיָּנִין מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן. \n\nו\nאִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, \nפְּטָרוּהוּ, \nוְאִם לָאו, \nעוֹמְדִים עַל הַמִּנְיָן. \nשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין, וְאֶחָד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין, \nזַכַּי. \nשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין, וְאֶחָד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין; \n[אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאֶחָד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין, \nוְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ\",] \nאֲפִלּוּ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ מְחַיְּבִין, \nוְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר \"אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ\", \nיוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּנִין. \n\nז\nעַד כַּמָּה מוֹסִיפִין? \nשְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם, עַד שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. \nשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְזַכִּין, וּשְׁלשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְחַיְּבִין, \nזַכַּי. <זָכוּ>\nשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְחַיְּבִין, וּשְׁלשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְזַכִּין, \nדָּנִין אֵלּוּ כְנֶגֶד אֵלּוּ, \nעַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אֶחָד מִן הַמְחַיְּבִין אֶת דִּבְרֵי מְזַכִּים. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nנִגְמַר הַדִּין, \nמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְסָקְלוֹ. \nוּבֵית סְקִילָה הָיָה חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא כד,יד) \n\"הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה\". \nוְאֶחָד עוֹמֵד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין וְהַסּוּדָרִין בְּיָדוֹ, \nוְהַסּוּס רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא רוֹאֵהוּ. \nאָמַר אֶחָד: \n\"יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת\", \nוְהַלָּה מֵנִיף בַּסּוּדָרִין, \nוְהַסּוּס רָץ וּמַעֲמִידוֹ. \nוַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר: \n\"יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת\", \nמַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ, אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים, \nוּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו. \n\nב\nאִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, \nפְּטָרוּהוּ, \nוְאִם לָאו, יוֹצֵא לִסָּקֵל. \nוְהַכָּרוֹז יוֹצֵא לְפָנָיו: \n\"אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶן פְּלוֹנִי יוֹצֵא לִסָּקֵל, \nעַל שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה פְלוֹנִית, \nוּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו. \nוְכָל מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לוֹ זְכוּת, \nיָבֹא וִילַמֵּד!\" \n",
+ "ג\nרָחוֹק מִבֵּית סְקִילָה עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: \n\"הִתְוַדֵּה!\" \nשֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ הַמּוּמָתִים מִתְוַדִּים, \nשֶׁכָּל הַמִּתְוַדֶּה, יֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. \nשֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְעָכָן, שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: (יהושע ז,יט-כ) \n\"בְּנִי, שִׂים נָא כָבוֹד לַיי אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְתֶן לוֹ תוֹדָה, \nוְהַגֶּד נָא לִי מֶה עָשִׂיתָ אַל תְּכַחֵד מִמֶּנִּי.\" \nוַיַּעַן עָכָן אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וַיֹּאמַר, \nאָמְנָה אָנֹכִי חָטָאתִי לַיי אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, \nוְכָזֹאת וְכָזֹאת עָשִׂיתִי.\" \nוּמְנַיִן שֶׁנִּתְכַּפַּר לוֹ עַל וִדּוּיוֹ? \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (יהושע ז,כה)\n\"וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: \nמֶה עֲכַרְתָּנוּ? \nיַעְכָּרְךָ יי בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה!\" <הַיּוֹם>\nהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אַתָּה עָכוּר, \nאֵין אַתָּה עָכוּר לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא. \n\nד\nוְאִם אֵינוּ יוֹדֵעַ לְהִתְוַדּוֹת, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: \n\"אֱמֹר: \nתְּהֵא מִיתָתִי כַפָּרָה עַל כָּל עֲוֹנוֹתַי.\" \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאִם יוֹדֵעַ הוּא שֶׁהוּא מְזֻמָּם, אוֹמֵר: <מְוֹזמֵם>\n\"תְּהֵא מִיתָתִי כַפָּרָה עַל כָּל עֲוֹנוֹתַי, \nחוּץ מִן הֶעָוֹן הַזֶּה.\" \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nאִם כֵּן, יְהוּ כָל אָדָם אוֹמְרִין כֵּן, \nכְּדֵי לְנַקּוֹת אֶת עַצְמָן. \n",
+ "ה\nרָחוֹק מִבֵּית סְקִילָה אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, \nהָיוּ מַפְשִׁיטִין אוֹתוֹ אֶת בְּגָדָיו. \nהָאִישׁ, מְכַסִּין אוֹתוֹ מִלְּפָנָיו, \nוְהָאִשָּׁה, מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּמִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי יְהוּדָה. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nהָאִישׁ נִסְקָל עָרֹם, \nוְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִסְקֶלֶת עֲרֻמָּה. \n",
+ "ו\nבֵּית סְקִילָה הָיָה גָבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי קוֹמוֹת. \nאֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים דּוֹחֲפוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו, \nוְנֶהְפַּךְ עַל לִבּוֹ. \nהֲפָכוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו, וְאִם מֵת, יָצָא. \nוְאִם לָאו, \nהָעֵד הַשֵּׁנִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ, \nוְאִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. \nוְאִם לָאו, רְגִימָתוֹ בְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יז,ז) \n\"יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ, \nוְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה\". \n\nז\nכָּל הַנִּסְקָלִים נִתְלִים. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nאֵינוּ נִתְלֶה אֶלָּא הַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. \nהָאִישׁ, תּוֹלִים אוֹתוֹ וּפָנָיו כְּלַפֵּי הָעָם, \nוְהָאִשָּׁה פָנֶיהָ כְלַפֵּי הָעֵץ. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nהָאִישׁ נִתְלֶה, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִתְלֵית. \n\nח\nאָמַר רְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: \nמַעֲשֶׂה בְשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח, \nשֶׁתָּלָה נָשִׁים בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן! \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nשְׁמוֹנִים אִשָּׁה תָלָה, \nוְאֵין דָּנִין שְׁנַיִם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. \n\nט\nכֵּיצַד תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ? \nמְשַׁקְּעִין אֶת הַקּוֹרָה בָאָרֶץ, \nוְהָעֵץ יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה, \nוּמַקִּיף שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו זוֹ לָזוֹ, וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ. \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: \nקוֹרָה מָטָה עַל הַכֹּתֶל, \nוְתוֹלֶה בָהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַטַּבָּחִין תּוֹלִין. \nוּמַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. \nוְאִם לָן, \nעוֹבְרִים עָלָיו בְּ'לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה', שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים כא,כג) \n\"לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ, \nכִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ בַיּוֹם הַהוּא, \nכִּי קִלְלַת אֱלהִים תָּלוּי\". \nכְּלוֹמַר, \"מִפְּנֵי מָה זֶה תָלוּי? \nמִפְּנֵי שֶׁקִּלֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם!\" \nוְנִמְצָא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם מִתְחַלֵּל. \n",
+ "י\nאָמַר רְבִּי מֵאִיר: \nבִּזְמַן שֶׁאָדָם מִצְטָעֵר, \nמָה הַלָּשׁוֹן אוֹמֶרֶת? \n\"קַלְעֵינִי מֵרֹאשִׁי, קַלְעֵינִי מִזְּרוֹעִי!\" \nאִם כָּךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב: \nמִצְטָעֵר אֲנִי עַל דָּמָן שֶׁלָּרְשָׁעִין, \nקַל וָחֹמֶר עַל דַּם צַדִּיקִים שֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ. \n\nיא\nוְלֹא זוֹ בִלְבַד, \nאֶלָּא שֶׁכָּל הַמֵּלִין אֶת מֵתוֹ, \nעוֹבֵר בְּ'לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה'. \nהֱלִינוֹ לִכְבוֹדוֹ, \nלְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִים, \nאֵינוּ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. \nוְלֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין אוֹתָם בְּקִבְרוֹת אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן, \nאֶלָּא שְׁנֵי קְבָרוֹת הָיוּ מֻתְקָנִין לְבֵית דִּין, \nאֶחָד לַנִּסְקָלִים וְלַנִּשְׂרָפִים, \nוְאֶחָד לַנֶּהְרָגִים וְלַנֶּחְנָקִים. \n",
+ "יב\nנִתְאַכַּל הַבָּשָׂר, <נִתְאַכַל>\nהָיוּ מְלַקְּטִין אֶת הָעֲצָמוֹת וְקוֹבְרִין אוֹתָן בַּמָּקוֹם. \nוְהַקְּרוֹבִין בָּאִין, \nוְשׁוֹאֲלִין אֶת שְׁלוֹם הָעֵדִים וְאֶת שְׁלוֹם הַדַּיָּנִין, \nכְּלוֹמַר שֶׁ\"אֵין בְּלִבֵּנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, שֶׁדִּין אֱמֶת דַּנְתֶּם.\" \nוְלֹא הָיוּ מִתְאַבְּלִין אֶלָּא אוֹנְנִים, \nשֶׁאֵין אֲנִינָה אֶלָּא בַלֵּב. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nאַרְבָּעָה מִיתוֹת נִמְסְרוּ לְבֵית דִּין: \nסְקִילָה, שְׂרִיפָה, הֶרֶג וְחָנֵק. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nשְׂרִיפָה, סְקִילָה, חָנֵק וְהֶרֶג. \nזוֹ מִצְוַת הַנִּסְקָלִים. \n",
+ "ב\nמִצְוַת הַנִּשְׂרָפִים: \nהָיוּ מְשַׁקְּעִים אוֹתוֹ בַזֶּבֶל עַד אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו, \nוְנוֹתְנִין סוּדָרִין, קָשָׁה לְתוֹךְ הָרַכָּה, \nוְכוֹרֵךְ עַל צַוָּארוֹ. \nזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ, \nעַד שֶׁהוּא פוֹתֵחַ אֶת פִּיו, \nוּמַדְלִיק אֶת הַפְּתִילָה וְזוֹרְקָהּ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו, <הבדילה>\nוְיוֹרֶדֶת לְתוֹךְ מֵעָיו וְחוֹמֶרֶת אֶת בְּנֵי מֵעָיו. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאַף הוּא, אִם מֵת בְּיָדָם, \nלֹא הָיוּ מְקַיְּמִין בּוֹ מִצְוַת שְׂרִיפָה. \nאֶלָּא פוֹתְחִין אֶת פִּיו בְּצָבַת שֶׁלֹּא בְטוֹבָתוֹ, \nוּמַדְלִיק אֶת הַפְּתִילָה וְזוֹרְקָהּ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו, <הבדילה>\nוְיוֹרֶדֶת לְתוֹךְ מֵעָיו וְחוֹמֶרֶת אֶת בְּנֵי מֵעָיו. \nאָמַר רְבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בִּרְבִּי צָדוֹק: \nמַעֲשֶׂה בְּבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנָּת, \nוְהִקִּיפוּהָ חֲבִילֵי זְמוֹרוֹת וּשְׂרָפוּהָ. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nמִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בֵית דִּין שֶׁבְּאוֹתָהּ הַשָּׁעָה בָקִי. \n",
+ "ג\nמִצְוַת הַנֶּהֱרָגִים: \nהָיוּ מַתִּיזִים אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בַסַּיִף, \nכְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמַּלְכוּת עוֹשָׂה. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nנִוּוּל הוּא זֶה! \nאֶלָּא מַנִּיחַ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ עַל הַסַּדָּן, \nוְקוֹצֵץ בַּקּוֹפִּיץ; \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nאֵין מִיתָה מְנֻוֶּלֶת מִזּוֹ! \n\nד\nמִצְוַת הַנֶּחֱנָקִים: \nהָיוּ מְשַׁקְּעִים אוֹתוֹ בַזֶּבֶל עַד אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו, \nוְנוֹתְנִין סוּדָרִין, קָשָׁה לְתוֹךְ הָרַכָּה, \nוְכוֹרֵךְ עַל צַוָּארוֹ. \nזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ, \nעַד שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ יוֹצָא. \n",
+ "ה\nוְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּסְקָלִים: \nהַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, \nוְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָב, \nוְעַל הַכַּלָּה, \nהַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר, \nוְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, \nוְהָאִשָּׁה מְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, \nוְהַמְגַדֵּף, \nוְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, \nוְהַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ, \nוּבַעַל אוֹב, \nוְיִדְּעוֹנִי, \nוְהַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, \nוְהַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, \nוְהַבָּא עַל הַנַּעֲרָה מְאֹרָסָה, \nוְהַמֵּסִית, \nוְהַמַּדִּיחַ, \nוְהַמְכַשֵּׁף, \nוּבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. \n\nו\nהַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, \nחַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אֵשֶׁת הָאָב וּמִשֵּׁם אֵם. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשֵּׁם הָאֵם בִּלְבַד. \n\nז\nהַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אָב, \nחַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אֵשֶׁת אָב וּמִשֵּׁם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, \nבֵּין בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו, \nוּבֵין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו, \nבֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין, \nוּבֵין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. \n\nח\nהַבָּא עַל כַּלָּתוֹ, \nחַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם כַּלָּתוֹ וּמִשֵּׁם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, \nבֵּין בְּחַיֵּי בְנוֹ, \nוּבֵין לְאַחַר מִיתַת בְּנוֹ, \nבֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין \nוּבֵין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. \n\nט\nהַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר, \nוְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, \nוְהָאִשָּׁה מְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. \nאִם אָדָם חָטָא, \nמַה חָטָאת הַבְּהֵמָה? <מַה חַטָּאת>\nאֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁבָּאת לָאָדָן תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדֶיהָ, \nלְפִיכָךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב תִּסָּקֵל. \nדָּבָר אַחֵר: \nשֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא הַבְּהֵמָה עוֹבֶרֶת בַּשּׁוּק, \nוְיֹאמְרוּ: \nזוֹ הִיא שֶׁנִּסְקַל אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עַל יָדֶיהָ. \n",
+ "י\nהַמְגַדֵּף אֵינוּ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׁם. \nאָמַר רְבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה: \nבְּכָל יוֹם דָּנִין אֶת הָעֵדִים בְּכִנּוּי: \n\"יַכֶּה יוֹסֵה אֶת יוֹסֵה!\" \nנִגְמַר הַדִּין, \nלֹא הָיוּ הוֹרְגִים בְּכִנּוּי, \nאֶלָּא מוֹצִיאִין אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לַחוּץ, \nוּמְשַׁיְּרִין אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: \n\"אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁשָּׁמַעְתָּ בְפֵרוּשׁ!\" \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר. \nוְהַדַּיָּנִין עוֹמְדִין עַל רַגְלֵיהֶן, \nוְקוֹרְעִין וְלֹא מְאַחִים. \nוְהַשֵּׁנִי אוֹמֵר: \n\"אַף אֲנִי כָמוֹהוּ.\" \nוְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר: \n\"אַף אֲנִי כָמוֹהוּ.\" \n",
+ "יא\nהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, \nאֶחָד הָעוֹבֵד, \nוְאֶחָד הַזּוֹבֵחַ, \nוְאֶחָד הַמְקַטֵּר, \nוְאֶחָד הַמְנַסֵּךְ, \nוְאֶחָד הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה, \nוְהַמְקַבְּלוֹ עָלָיו לֶאֱלוֹהַּ, \nוְהָאוֹמֵר לוֹ \"אֵלִי אַתָּה!\" \n\nיב\nאֲבָל הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק וְהַמְכַבֵּד וְהַמְרַבֵּץ וְהַמַּרְחִיץ, \nהַסָּךְ, הַמַּלְבִּישׁ וְהַמַּנְעִיל, \nעוֹבֵר בְּ'לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה'; \nהַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁמוֹ, \nעוֹבֵר בְּ'לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה'. \nהַפּוֹעֵר עַצְמוֹ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר, \nזוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ. \nוְהַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן בַּמַּרְקוּלִּיס, \nזוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ. \n",
+ "יג\nהַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּמְסֹר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְיַעֲבִיר בָּאֵשׁ. \nהֶעֱבִיר בָּאֵשׁ וְלֹא מָסַר לַמֹּלֶךְ, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּמְסֹר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְיַעֲבִיר בָּאֵשׁ. \nוּבַעַל אוֹב, \nזֶה הַפִּיתוֹם וְהַמְדַבֵּר מִשִּׁיחָיו; \nוְיִדְּעוֹנִי, הַמְדַבֵּר בְּפִיו. \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בִסְקִילָה, \nוְהַנִּשְׁאָל בָּהֶם בְּאַזְהָרָה. \n",
+ "יד\nהַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת \nבְּדָבָר שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת, \nוְהַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּקַלְּלֵם בְּשֵׁם. \nקִלְּלָם בַּשֵּׁם, קִלְּלָם בְּכִנּוּי, \nרְבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב, \nוַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. \n",
+ "יה\nהַבָּא עַל נַעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָסָה, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה מְאֹרָסָה, \nבְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. \nבָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁנַיִם, \nהָרִאשׁוֹן בִּסְקִילָה, וְהַשֵּׁנִי בֶחָנֵק. \n",
+ "יו\nהַמֵּסִית, \nזֶה הֶדְיוֹט וְהַמֵּסִית אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹט. \nאָמַר: \n\"יֵשׁ יִרְאָה בִמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, \nכָּךְ אוֹכֶלֶת, כָּךְ שׁוֹתָה, \nכָּךְ מְטִיבָה, כָּךְ מְרִיעָה.\" <המְטִיבָה> \nכָּל חַיְבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, \nאֵין מַכְמִינִין עֲלֵיהֶם, חוּץ מִזּוֹ. \nאָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם, וְהֵן עֵדָיו, \nמְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ. \n\nיז\nאָמַר לְאֶחָד הוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: \n\"יֶשׁ לִי חֲבֵרִין רוֹצִין בְּכָךְ.\" \nאִם הָיָה עָרוּם, אֵינוּ יָכוֹל לְדַבֵּר בִּפְנֵיהֶן, \nאֶלָּא מַכְמִינָם לַאֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר, \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: \n\"אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתָּ לִּי בְיֵחוּד!\" \nוְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לוֹ: \n\"הֵיאָךְ נַנִּיחַ אֶת אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם, \nוְנֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים?\" \nאִם חָזַר בּוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה מוּטָב, \nוְאִם אָמַר: \n\"כָּךְ הוּא חוֹבָתֵנוּ, וְכֵן יָפֶה לָנוּ\", \nהָעוֹמְדִים מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין, \nוְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ. \n\nיח\nהָאוֹמֵר: \n\"אֶעֱבֹד\", \"אֵלֵךְ וְאֶעֱבֹד\", \"נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד\"; \n\"אֲזַבַּח\", \"אֵלֵךְ \"וַאֲזַבַּח\", \"נֵלֵךְ וּנְזַבַּח\"; \n\"אֲקַטֵּר, \"אֵלֵךְ וַאֲקַטֵּר \", \"נֵלֵךְ וּנְקַטֵּר\"; \n\"אֲנַסֵּךְ\", \"אֵלֵךְ וַאֲנַסֵּךְ\", \"נֵלֵךְ וּנְנַסֵּךְ\"; \n\"אֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה\", \"אֵלֵךְ וְאֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה\", \"נֵלֵךְ וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה\". \nהַמַּדִּיחַ, זֶה הוּא הָאוֹמֵר: \n\"נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה\". \n",
+ "יט\nהַמְכַשֵּׁף, \nהָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה, לֹא הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם. \nרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר מִשֵּׁם רְבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: \nשְׁנַיִם לוֹקְטִים קִשּׁוּאִים, \nאֶחָד לוֹקֵט פָּטוּר, וְאֶחָד מְלַקֵּט חַיָּב: \nהָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּב, \nוְהָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם פָּטוּר. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nבֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, \nמֵאֶמָּתַי הוּא נֶעֱשָׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה? \nמִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, עַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף זָקָן. \nהַתַּחְתּוֹן, לֹא אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹן, \nאֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא,יח) \"כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן\", \nבֵּן, לֹא בַת, \nבֵּן, לֹא אִישׁ. \nהַקָּטָן פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא בָא לִכְלַל הַמִּצְוֹת. \n",
+ "ב\nמֵאֶמָּתַי הוּא חַיָּב? \nמִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל טַרְטֵימַר בָּשָׂר, \nוְיִשְׁתֶּה חֲצִי לוֹג יַיִן בָּאִיטַלְקִי. \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: \nמָנֵה בָשָׂר וְלֹג יַיִן. \nאָכַל בְּעִבּוּר הַחֹדֶשׁ, \nאָכַל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִירוּשָׁלַיִם, \nאָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, וּשְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, \nאָכַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִצְוָה וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא עֲבֵרָה; \nאָכַל כָּל מַאֲכָל וְלֹא אָכַל בָּשָׂר, \nשָׁתָה כָל מַשְׁקֶה וְלֹא שָׁתָה יַיִן, \nאֵינוּ נֶעֱשָׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, \nעַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר וְיִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים כא,כ) \n\"זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא\". \nאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר: (משלי כג,כ) \n\"אַל תְּהִי בְסֹבְאֵי יָיִן, בְּזֹלְלֵי בָשָׂר לָמוֹ\". \n",
+ "ג\nגָּנַב מִשֶּׁלְּאָבִיו וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיו, \nמִשֶּׁלַּאֲחֵרִין וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אֲחֵרִין, \nמִשֶּׁלַּאֲחֵרִין וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיו, \nאֵינוּ נֶעֱשָׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, \nעַד שֶׁיִּגְנֹב מִשֶּׁלְּאָבִיו וְיֹאכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אֲחֵרִים. \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה בִרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: <וּרְ יְהוּדָה אוֹ'>\nעַד שֶׁיִּגְנֹב מִשֶּׁלְּאָבִיו וּמִשֶּׁלְּאִמּוֹ. \n",
+ "ד\nהָיָה אָבִיו רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ אֵינָה רוֹצָה, \nאִמּוֹ רוֹצָה וְאָבִיו אֵינוּ רוֹצֶה, \nאֵינוּ נֶעֱשָׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, \nעַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן רוֹצִין. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאִם לֹא הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לְאָבִיו, \nאֵינוּ נֶעֱשָׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. \n\nה\nהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן גִּדֵּם, אוֹ חִגֵּר, \nאוֹ אִלֵּם, אוֹ סוֹמֵא, אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ, \nאֵינוּ נֶעֱשָׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים כא,יט-כ) \n\"וְתָפְשׁוּ בוֹ\", לֹא גִדְּמִים; \n\"וְהוֹצִיאוּ אוֹתוֹ\", לֹא חִגְּרִים; \n\"וְאָמְרוּ\", לֹא אִלְּמִים; \n\"בְּנֵנוּ זֶה\", לֹא סוּמִים; \n\"אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ\", לֹא חֵרְשִׁים. \nמַתְרִין בּוֹ בִפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ. \nחָזַר וְקִלְקֵל, \nיִדּוֹן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. \nאֵינוּ נִסְקָל עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנִים, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא, כ) \"בְּנֵנוּ זֶה\", \nהוּא שֶׁלָּקָה בִפְנֵיכֶם. \n\nו\nבָּרַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ, \nוְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, \nפָּטוּר. \nוְאִם מִשֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בָרַח, \nוְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, \nחַיָּב. \n",
+ "ז\nבֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה יִדּוֹן לְשֵׁם סוֹפוֹ, \nיָמוּת זַכַּי וְאַל יָמוּת חַיָּב. \nשֶׁמִּיתָתָן שֶׁלָּרְשָׁעִין הֲנָיָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָיָה לָעוֹלָם, \nוְלַצַּדִּיקִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. \nיַיִן וְשֵׁנָה לָרְשָׁעִין, הֲנָיָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָיָה לָעוֹלָם, \nוְלַצַּדִּיקִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. \nפִּזּוּר לָרְשָׁעִין, הֲנָיָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָיָה לָעוֹלָם, \nוְלַצַּדִּיקִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. \nכִּנּוּס לָרְשָׁעִין, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם, \nוְלַצַּדִּיקִים, הֲנָיָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָיָה לָעוֹלָם. \nשֶׁקֶט לָרְשָׁעִין, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם, \nוְלַצַּדִּיקִים, הֲנָיָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָיָה לָעוֹלָם. \n",
+ "ח\nהַבָּא בַמַּחְתֶּרֶת יִדּוֹן עַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ. \nהָיָה בָא בַמַּחְתֶּרֶת וְשָׁבַר אֶת הֶחָבִית, \nאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ דָמִים, חַיָּב, \nאֵין לוֹ דָמִים, פָּטוּר. \n",
+ "ט\nאֵלּוּ שֶׁמַּצִּילִים אוֹתָן בְּנַפְשָׁן: \nהָרוֹדֵף אַחַר חֲבֵרוֹ לְהָרְגוֹ, \nוְאַחַר הַזְּכוּר וְאַחַר נַעֲרָה מְאֹרָסָה. \nאֲבָל הָרוֹדֵף אַחַר הַבְּהֵמָה, \nוְהַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, \nוְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, \nאֵין מַצִּילִין אוֹתָן בְּנַפְשָׁן. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nוְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין: \nהַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, וּבַת כֹּהֵן. \nוְיֵשׁ בִּכְלַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ: \nבִּתּוֹ, וּבַת בִּתּוֹ, וּבַת בְּנוֹ, \nוּבַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וּבַת בִּתָּהּ, וּבַת בְּנָהּ, \nחֲמוֹתוֹ, וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ, וְאֵם חָמִיו. \nוְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנֶּהֱרָגִין: \nרוֹצֵחַ וְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר נִדַּחַת. \n\nב\nרוֹצֵחַ שֶׁהִכָּה אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בֵּין בָּאֶבֶן בֵּין בַּבַּרְזֶל, \nוְכָבַשׁ עָלָיו לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הָאוּר, \nוְאֵינוּ יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת מִשָּׁם, וּמֵת, \nחַיָּב. \nדְּחָפוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הָאוּר, \nאִם יָכוֹל הוּא לַעֲלוֹת מִשָּׁם, וּמֵת, \nפָּטוּר. \nשִׁסָּה בוֹ אֶת הַכֶּלֶב, \nשִׁסָּה בוֹ אֶת הַנָּחָשׁ, \nפָּטוּר. \nהִשִּׂיךְ בּוֹ אֶת הַנָּחָשׁ, \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב, \nוַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. \n\nג\nהַמַּכֶּה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ, בֵּין בָּאֶבֶן, בֵּין בָּאֶגְרוֹף, \nוַאֲמָדוּהוּ לַמִּיתָה, \nהֵקֵל מִמַּה שֶּׁהָיָה, \nלְאַחַר מִכֵּן הִכְבִּיד וּמֵת, \nחַיָּב. \nרְבִּי נְחֶמְיָה פוֹטֵר, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר. \n",
+ "ד\nנִתְכַּוַּן לַהֲרוֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם, \nלַנָּכְרִי וְהָרַג אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, \nלַנְּפָלִים וְהָרַג בֶּן קַיָּמָה, \nפָּטוּר. \n\nה\nנִתְכַּוַּן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו, \nוְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו, \nוְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ, \nוְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ, \nוּמֵת, \nנִתְכַּוַּן עַל לִבּוֹ, \nוְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהַכּוֹתוֹ לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ, \nוְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל מָתְנָיו, \nוְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו, \nוּמֵת, \nנִתְכַּוַּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, \nוְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, \nוְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן, \nוְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן, \nוּמֵת, \nנִתְכַּוַּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַקָּטָן, \nוְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן, \nוְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַגָּדוֹל, \nוְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, \nוּמֵת, פָּטוּר. \n\nו\nנִתְכַּוַּן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו, \nוְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו, \nוְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ, \nוּמֵת, \nנִתְכַּוַּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, \nוְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, \nוְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן, \nוּמֵת, חַיָּב. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nאֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוַּן לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה, \nפָּטוּר. \n",
+ "ז\nרוֹצֵחַ שֶׁנִּתְעָרַב בַּאֲחֵרִים, כֻּלָּם פְּטוּרִין. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nכּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּפָּה. \nוְכל חַיְבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה, \nיִדּוֹנוּ בַקַּלָּה. \nהַנִּסְקָלִים בַּנִּשְׂרָפִים. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nיִדּוֹנוּ בִסְקִילָה, שֶׁהַשְּׂרִיפָה חֲמוּרָה. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nיִדּוֹנוּ בִשְׂרִיפָה, שֶׁהַסְּקִילָה חֲמוּרָה. \n\nח\nאָמַר לָהֶן רְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: \nאִלּוּ לֹא הָיְתָה שְׂרִיפָה חֲמוּרָה, \nלֹא נִתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנַּת. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nאִלּוּ לֹא הָיְתָה סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, \nלֹא נִתְּנָה לַמְגַדֵּף וְלָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. \nהַנֶּהֱרָגִים בַּנֶּחֱנָקִין, \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nבַּסַּיִף. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nבֶּחָנֵק. \n",
+ "ט\nמִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיַּב בִּשְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, \nיִדּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה. \nעָבַר עֲבֵרָה שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת, \nיִדּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה. \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: \nיִדּוֹן בְּזִקָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁבָּאת עָלָיו. \n",
+ "י\nמִי שֶׁלָּקָה וְשָׁנָה בְּבֵית דִּין, \nכּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּפָּה, \nוּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעוֹרִים עַד שֶׁכְּרֵסוֹ נִבְקַעַת. \nהַהוֹרֵג נְפָשׁוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים, \nכּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּפָּה \nוְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ לֶחֶם צַר וּמַיִם לַחַץ. \n",
+ "יא\nהַגּוֹנֵב אֶת הַקִּסְוָה, \nוְהַמְקַלֵּל בַּקּוֹסֵם, \nוְהַבּוֹעֵל אֲרָמִית, \nקַנָּאִים פּוֹגְעִים בָּהֶן. \nכֹּהֵן שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ בְּטֻמְאָה, \nאֵין אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין, \nאֶלָּא פִרְחֵי כְהֻנָּה מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ חוּץ לַעֲזָרָה, \nוּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת מוֹחוֹ בַגִּיזֵרִין. \nזָר שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, \nרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: \nבֶּחָנֵק. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nבִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\n[כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ישעיה ס,כא) \n\"וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים, לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ, \nנֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר\".] \nוְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא: \nהָאוֹמֵר: \nאֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, \nוְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, \nוְאַפִּיקוֹרוֹס. \nרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: \nאַף הַקּוֹרֵא בִסְפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִין, \nוְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר: (שמות טו,כו) \n\"כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם, \nלֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ, כִּי אֲנִי יי רֹפְאֶךָ\". \nאַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: \nאַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו. \n",
+ "ב\nשְׁלֹשָׁה מְלָכִים וְאַרְבָּעָה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, \nאֵין לָהֶן חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. \nשְׁלֹשָׁה מְלָכִים: \nיָרָבְעָם וְאַחְאָב וּמְנַשֶּׁה. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nמְנַשֶּׁה, יֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברי הימים ב לג,יג) \n\"וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אֵלָיו, וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ וַיִּשְׁמַע תְּחִנָּתוֹ, \nוַיְּשִׁיבֵהוּ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לְמַלְכוּתוֹ\". \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nלְמַלְכוּתוֹ הֱשִׁיבוֹ, \nלֹא הֱשִׁיבוֹ לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. \nוְאַרְבָּעָה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת: \nבִּלְעָם וְדוֹאֵג, אֲחִיתֹפֶל וְגֵחֲזִי. \n",
+ "ג\nדּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל, אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, \nוְאֵין עוֹמְדִין בַּדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (בראשית ו,ג) \n\"לֹא יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם בְּשַׁגַּם הוּא בָשָׂר.\" \nאַנְשֵׁי סְדוֹם, אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, \nאֲבָל עוֹמְדִין בַּדִּין. \nרְבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: \nאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ אֵינָן עוֹמְדִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (תהלים א,ה) \n\"עַל כֵּן לֹא יָקֻמוּ רְשָׁעִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט\", \nזֶה דוֹר הַמַּבּוּל; \n\"וְחַטָּאִים בַּעֲדַת צַדִּיקִים\", \nאֵלּוּ אַנְשֵׁי סְדוֹם. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nבַּעֲדַת צַדִּיקִים אֵינָן עוֹמְדִין, \nעוֹמְדִין הֵן בַּעֲדַת רְשָׁעִים. \n\nד\nדּוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר, אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, \nוְאֵין עוֹמְדִין בַּדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (במדבר יד,לה) \n\"בַּמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה יִתַּמּוּ, וְשָׁם יָמֻתוּ\". \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי עֲקִיבָה. \nרְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: \nעֲלֵיהֶן הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהלים נ,ה) \n\"אִסְפוּ לִי חֲסִידָי, כֹּרְתֵי בְרִיתִי עֲלֵי זָבַח\". \n\nה\nעֲדַת קֹרַח אֵינָה עֲתִידָה לַעֲלוֹת, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (במדבר טז,לג) \n\"וַתְּכַס עֲלֵיהֶם הָאָרֶץ, \n\"וַיֹּאבְדוּ מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל\". \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי עֲקִיבָה. \nרְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: \nעֲלֵיהֶן הוּא אוֹמֵר (שמואל א ב,ו) \n\"יי מֵמִית וּמְחַיֶּה, מוֹרִיד שְׁאוֹל וַיָּעַל\". \n\nו\nעֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים אֵינָן עֲתִידִין לַחְזוֹר, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים כט,כז) \n\"וַיַּשְׁלִכֵם אֶל אֶרֶץ אַחֶרֶת כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה\", \nמָה הַיּוֹם הוֹלֵךְ וְאֵינוּ חוֹזֵר, \nאַף הֵן הוֹלְכִין וְאֵינָן חוֹזְרִין. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי עֲקִיבָה. \nרְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: \nמָה הַיּוֹם מַאֲפִיל וּמֵאִיר, \nאַף הֵן שֶׁהִיא אֲפֵילָה לָהֶן, \nעֲתִידָה לֵאוֹר לָהֶן. \n",
+ "ז\nאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת [אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר]: (דברים יג,יד) \n\"יָצְאוּ אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי בְלִיַּעַל מִקִּרְבֶּךָ, \nוַיַּדִּיחוּ אֶת יֹשְׁבֵי עִירָם לֵאמֹר\", \nהָא אֵינָן נֶהְרָגִין, \nעַד שֶׁיְּהוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ מֵאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר וּמֵאוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט, \nעַד שֶׁיֻּדַּח רֻבָּהּ, \nעַד שֶׁיַּדִּיחוּהָ אֲנָשִׁים. \nהִדִּיחוּהָ נָשִׁים וּקְטַנִּים, \nאוֹ שֶׁהֻדַּח מֵעוּטָהּ, \nאוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ מֵחוּצָה לָהּ, \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִיחִידִים, \nצְרִיכִין שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְהַתְרָיָה לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. \nזֶה חֹמֶר בַּיְחִידִים מִבַּמְרֻבִּין, \nשֶׁהַיְחִידִין בִּסְקִילָה, \nלְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָן פָּלֵט, \nוְהַמְרֻבִּים בַּסַּיִף, \nלְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָן אָבֵד. \n",
+ "ח\n(דברים יג,טז) \n\"הַכֵּה תַכֶּה אֶת יֹשְׁבֵי הָעִיר הַהִוא לְפִי חָרֶב\", \nהַחַמֶּרֶת הַגַּמֶּלֶת, הָעוֹבֶרֶת מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מַצִּילִין אוֹתָן. \n(דברים יג,טז) \"הַחֲרֵם אֹתָהּ וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ, \nוְאֶת בְּהֶמְתָּהּ לְפִי חָרֶב.\" \nמִכָּן אָמָרוּ: \nנִכְסֵי צַדִּיקִים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ אוֹבְדִין, \nוְשֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָהּ פְּלֵטִין, \nוְשֶׁלָּרְשָׁעִין, \nבֵּין מִתּוֹכָהּ וּבֵין מִחוּצָה לָהּ אוֹבְדִין. \n",
+ "ט\n(דברים יג,יז) \n\"וְאֶת כָּל שְׁלָלָהּ תִּקְבֹּץ אֶל תּוֹךְ רְחֹבָהּ\", \nאֵין לָהּ רְחוֹב, עוֹשִׂין לָהּ רְחוֹב. \nהָיָה רְחוֹבָהּ חוּצָה לָהּ, כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר \"אֶל תּוֹךְ רְחֹבָהּ\".\n(דברים יג,יז) \"וְשָׂרַפְתָּ בָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעִיר וְאֶת כָּל שְׁלָלָהּ\", \n\"שְׁלָלָהּ\", לֹא שְׁלַל שָׁמַיִם. \nמִכָּן אָמָרוּ: \nהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ יִפָּדוּ, \nוּתְרוּמוֹת יִרְקָבוּ, \nוּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכִתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ יִגָּנֵזוּ. \n\nי\n(דברים יג,יז) \"כָּלִיל לַיי אֱלהֶיךָ\", \nאָמַר רְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: \nאִם עוֹשֶׂה אַתָּה דִין בְּעִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, \nמַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עֲלֶיךָ כְּאִלּוּ אַתְּ מַעֲלֶה עוֹלָה כָלִיל לְפָנַי. \n(דברים יג,יז) \"וְהָיְתָה תֵל עוֹלָם, לֹא תִבָּנֶה עוֹד\", \nוְלֹא תֵעָשֶׂה אֲפִלּוּ גַנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּסִים. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי יוֹסֵה הַגָּלִילִי. \nרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא תִבָּנֶה עוֹד\", \nעוֹד לִי כְמוֹ שֶׁהָיַת אֵינָה נִבְנֵית, \nאֲבָל נֶעְשֵׁית הִיא גַּנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּסִים. \n\nיא\n(דברים יג,יח) \"וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם, \nלְמַעַן יָשׁוּב יי מֵחֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ\",\nכָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם, \nחֲרוֹן אַף בָּעוֹלָם; \nאָבְדוּ רְשָׁעִים מִן הָעוֹלָם, \nנִסְתַּלַּק חֲרוֹן אַף מִן הָעוֹלָם. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנֶּחֱנָקִין: \nהַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, \nוְגוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, \nוְזָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, \nוּנְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר, \nוְהַמִּתְנַבֵּא לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, \nוְהַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, \nוְזוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ. \n\nב\nהַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בָהֶן חַבּוּרָה. \nזֶה חֹמֶר בַּמְקַלֵּל מִבַּמַּכֶּה, \nשֶׁהַמְקַלֵּל לְאַחַר מִיתָה חַיָּב, \nוְהַמַּכֶּה אַחַר מִיתָה פָּטוּר. \nוְגוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nעַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִשְׁתַּמֶּשׁ בּוֹ, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד,ז) \"וְהִתְעַמֶּר בּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ\". \nוְהַגּוֹנֵב אֶת בְּנוֹ, \nרְבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה מְחַיֵּב, \nוַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. \nגָּנַב אֶת שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חֹרִין, \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב, \nוַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. \n",
+ "ג\nזָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יז,ח) \n\"כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט, \nבֵּין דָּם לְדָם, בֵּין דִּין לְדִין, וּבֵין נֶגַע לָנֶגַע, \nדִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ\". \nוּשְׁלֹשָׁה בָתֵּי דִינִים הָיוּ שָׁם: \nאֶחָד עַל פֶּתַח הַר הַבַּיִת, \nוְאֶחָד עַל פֶּתַח הָעֲזָרָה, \nוְאֶחָד בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית. \nבָּאִין לָזֶה שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח הַר הַבַּיִת, \nוְאוֹמֵר: \n\"כָּךְ דָּרַשְׁתִּי, וְכָךְ דָּרְשׁוּ חֲבֵרַי\", \n\"כָּךְ לִמַּדְתִּי, וְכָךְ לִמְּדוּ חֲבֵרַי\". <לָימְדוּ> \nאִם שָׁמְעוּ, אוֹמְרִים לָהֶן, \nוְאִם לָאו, בָּאִין לָזֶה שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח הָעֲזָרָה, \nוְאוֹמֵר: \n\"כָּךְ דָּרַשְׁתִּי, וְכָךְ דָּרְשׁוּ חֲבֵרַי\", \n\"כָּךְ לִמַּדְתִּי, וְכָךְ לִמְּדוּ חֲבֵרַי\". \nאִם שָׁמְעוּ, אוֹמְרִים לָהֶן, \nוְאִם לָאו, \nאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ בָאִין לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית, \nשֶׁמִּשָּׁם תּוֹרָה יוֹצָא לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יז,י)\n\"מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יי\". \n\nד\nחָזַר לְעִירוֹ, \nוְשָׁנָה וְלִמֵּד כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא לִמּוּד, \nפָּטוּר, \nוְאִם הוֹרָה לַעֲשׁוֹת, \nחַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יז,יב)\n\"וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן\", \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיּוֹרֶה לַעֲשׁוֹת. \nהַתַּלְמִיד שֶׁהוֹרָה לַעֲשׁוֹת פָּטוּר; \nנִמְצָא חֻמְרוֹ קֻלּוֹ. <קַולּוֹ>\n",
+ "ה\nחֹמֶר בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. \nהָאוֹמֵר \"אֵין תְּפִלִּים\", \nלַעֲבֹר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה פָטוּר; \n\"חָמֵשׁ טוֹטָפוֹת\", \nלְהוֹסִיף עַל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, חַיָּב. \n",
+ "ו\nאֵין מְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ, \nלֹא בְבֵית דִּין שֶׁבְּעִירוֹ, וְלֹא בְבֵית דִּין שֶׁבְּיַבְנֶה, \nאֶלָּא מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, \nוּמְשַׁמְּרִין אוֹתוֹ עַד הָרֶגֶל, \nוּמְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ בָרֶגֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יז,יג) \n\"וְכָל הָעָם יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ\", \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי עֲקִיבָה. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאֵין מְעַנִּין דִּינוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה, \nאֶלָּא מְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד, \nוְכוֹתְבִין וְשׁוֹלְחִין בְּכָל הַמְּקוֹמוֹת: \n\"אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נִתְחַיַּב מִיתָה בְבֵית דִּין\". \n",
+ "ז\nוּנְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר, \nוְהַמִּתְנַבֵּא מַה שֶּׁלֹּא שָׁמַע וּמַה שֶּׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר לוֹ, \n[מִיתָתוֹ בִידֵי אָדָם.] \nאֲבָל הַכּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת נְבוּאָתוֹ, \nוְהַמְוַתֵּר עַל דִּבְרֵי הַנָּבִיא, \nוְנָבִיא שֶׁעָבַר עַל דִּבְרֵי עַצְמוֹ, <שעיבר>\nמִיתָתוֹ בִידֵי שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים יח,יט) \n\"אָנֹכִי אֶדְרֹשׁ מֵעִמּוֹ\". \n",
+ "ח\nהַמִּתְנַבֵּא בְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאוֹמֵר: \n\"כָּךְ אָמְרָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה\", \nאֲפִלּוּ כִוֵּן אֶת הַהֲלָכָה \nלְטַמֵּא אֶת הַטָּמֵא וּלְטַהֵר אֶת הַטָּהוֹר. \nהַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, \nכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל לַנִּשּׂוּאִין, \nאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעָלָה, \nוּבָא עָלֶיהָ, \nהֲרֵי זֶה בֶחָנֵק. <בחונקו> \nוְזוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ, \nהָא כָל הַזּוֹמְמִים, \nמְקַדְּמִים לְאוֹתָהּ מִיתָה, \nחוּץ מִזּוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ. \n"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/Hebrew/Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/Hebrew/Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9bfe817688ff73763505e2ee39731a57e514b7e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/Hebrew/Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913.json
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+{
+ "language": "he",
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001741739",
+ "versionTitle": "Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 2.0,
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+ "heversionSource": "http://primo.nli.org.il/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=NLI&docId=NNL_ALEPH00174173",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה, מהדורת בית דפוס ראם, וילנא 1913",
+ "actualLanguage": "he",
+ "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+ "isBaseText": true,
+ "isSource": true,
+ "isPrimary": true,
+ "direction": "rtl",
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "דיני ממונות בשלשה. גזילות וחבלות בשלשה. נזק וחצי נזק. תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה בשלשה. האונס והמפתה. והמוציא שם רע. בשלשה דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים מוציא שם רע. בעשרים ושלשה. מפני שיש בו דיני נפשות: ",
+ "מכות. בשלשה. משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו בעשרים ושלשה. עבור החדש. בשלשה. עבור השנה. בשלשה. דברי רבי מאיר. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר בשלשה מתחילין ובחמשה נושאין ונותנין. וגומרין בשבעה. ואם גמרו בשלשה מעוברת: ",
+ "סמיכת זקנים ועריפת עגלה בשלשה. דברי רבי שמעון. ורבי יהודה אומר בחמשה. החליצה והמיאונין בשלשה. נטע רבעי. ומעשר שני שאין דמיו ידועין. בשלשה. ההקדשות. בשלשה. הערכין המטלטלין בשלשה. רבי יהודה אומר אחד מהן כהן. והקרקעות. תשעה וכהן. ואדם כיוצא בהן: ",
+ "דיני נפשות בעשרים ושלשה. הרובע והנרבע בעשרים ושלשה. שנאמר (ויקרא כ, טז) והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה. ואומר (ויקרא כ, טו) ואת הבהמה תהרוגו. שור הנסקל בעשרים ושלשה. שנאמר (שמות כא, כט) השור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת. כמיתת בעלים. כך מיתת השור. הזאב. והארי. הדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש. מיתתן בעשרים ושלשה. רבי אליעזר אומר כל הקודם להורגן זכה. רבי עקיבא אומר מיתתן בעשרים ושלשה. ",
+ "אין דנין לא את השבט. ולא את נביא השקר. ולא את כהן גדול. אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד. ואין מוציאין למלחמת הרשות. אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד. אין מוסיפין על העיר. ועל העזרות. אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד. אין עושין סנהדריות לשבטים. אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד. אין עושין עיר הנדחת. אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד. ואין עושין עיר הנדחת בספר. ולא שלשה. אבל עושין אחת או שתים. ",
+ "סנהדרי גדולה. היתה של שבעים ואחד. וקטנה של עשרים ושלשה. ומנין לגדולה שהיא של שבעים ואחד. שנאמר (במדבר יא, טז) אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל. ומשה על גביהן. הרי שבעים ואחד. רבי יהודה אומר שבעים. ומנין לקטנה שהיא של עשרים ושלשה. שנאמר (במדבר לה, כד) ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה. עדה שופטת. ועדה מצלת הרי כאן עשרים. ומנין לעדה שהיא עשרה שנאמר (במדבר יד, כז) עד מתי לעדה הרעה הזאת. יצאו יהושע וכלב. ומנין להביא עוד שלשה. ממשמע שנאמר (שמות כג, ב) לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות. שומע אני שאהיה עמהם לטובה. אם כן למה נאמר (שם) אחרי רבים להטות. לא כהטייתך לטובה. הטייתך לרעה. הטייתך לטובה על פי אחד. הטייתך לרעה על פי שנים. ואין בית דין שקול מוסיפין עליהם עוד אחד. הרי כאן עשרים ושלשה. וכמה יהא בעיר ותהא ראויה לסנהדרין מאה ועשרים. רבי נחמיה אומר מאתים ושלשים. כנגד שרי עשרות: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "כהן גדול דן ודנין אותו. מעיד ומעידין אותו. חולץ. וחולצין לאשתו. ומיבמין את אשתו. אבל הוא אינו מיבם. מפני שהוא אסור באלמנה. מת לו מת. אינו יוצא אחר המטה. אלא הן נכסין. והוא נגלה. הן נגלין והוא נכסה. ויוצא עמהן עד פתח העיר. דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר אינו יוצא מן המקדש. שנאמר (ויקרא כא, יב) ומן המקדש לא יצא. וכשהוא מנחם אחרים. דרך כל העם עוברין בזה אחר זה. והממונה ממצעו בינו לבין העם. וכשהוא מתנחם מאחרים כל העם אומרים לו אנו כפרתך. והוא אומר להן תתברכו מן השמים. וכשמברין אותו. כל העם מסובין על הארץ והוא מיסב על הספסל: ",
+ "המלך לא דן. ולא דנין אותו. לא מעיד. ולא מעידין אותו. לא חולץ. ולא חולצין לאשתו. לא מיבם. ולא מיבמין לאשתו. רבי יהודה אומר אם רצה לחלוץ. או ליבם. זכור לטוב. אמרו לו אין שומעין לו. ואין נושאין אלמנתו. רבי יהודה אומר נושא המלך אלמנתו של מלך שכן מצינו בדוד שנשא אלמנתו של שאול. שנאמר (שמואל ב' יב, ח) ואתנה לך את בית אדוניך ואת נשי אדוניך בחיקך: ",
+ "מת לו מת. אינו יוצא מפתח פלטרין שלו. רבי יהודה אומר אם רוצה לצאת אחר המטה יוצא. שכן מצינו בדוד שיצא אחר מטתו של אבנר. שנאמר (שמואל ב' ג, לא) והמלך דוד הולך אחר המטה. אמרו לו לא היה הדבר אלא לפייס את העם. וכשמברין אותו. כל העם מסובין על הארץ. והוא מיסב על הדרגש: ",
+ "ומוציא למלחמת הרשות על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד. ופורץ לעשות לו דרך. ואין ממחין בידו. דרך המלך אין לו שיעור. וכל העם בוזזין ונותנין לפניו. והוא נוטל חלק בראש. לא ירבה לו נשים. אלא שמנה עשרה. רבי יהודה אומר מרבה הוא לו. ובלבד שלא יהו מסירות את לבו. ר' שמעון אומר אפילו אחת ומסירה את לבו הרי זה לא ישאנה. אם כן למה נאמר. (דברים יז, יז) לא ירבה לו נשים אפילו כאביגיל. (דברים יז, טז) לא ירבה לו סוסים. אלא כדי מרכבתו. (דברים יז, יז) וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו מאד. אלא כדי ליתן אספניא. וכותב לו ספר תורה לשמו. יוצא למלחמה מוציאה עמו. נכנס מכניסה עמו. יושב בדין היא עמו. מיסב היא כנגדו. שנאמר (דברים יז, טז) והיתה עמו וקרא בו כל ימי חייו: ",
+ "אין רוכבין על סוסו. ואין יושבין על כסאו. ואין משתמשין בשרביטו. ואין רואין אותו כשהוא מסתפר ולא כשהוא ערום. ולא בבית המרחץ. שנאמר (דברים יז, טז) שום תשים עליך מלך שתהא אימתו עליך: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "דיני ממונות בשלשה זה בורר לו אחד וזה בורר לו אחד. ושניהן בוררין להן עוד אחד. דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים שני דיינין בוררין להן עוד אחד. זה פוסל דיינו של זה. וזה פוסל דיינו של זה דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים אימתי בזמן שמביא עליהן ראיה שהן קרובין. או פסולין. אבל אם היו כשרים או מומחין אינו יכול לפוסלן. זה פוסל עדיו של זה. וזה פוסל עדיו של זה. דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים אימתי. בזמן שהוא מביא עליהם ראיה שהן קרובים או פסולים אבל אם היו כשרים. אינו יכול לפוסלן: ",
+ "אמר לו נאמן עלי אבא. נאמן עלי אביך. נאמנין עלי שלשה רועי בקר. רבי מאיר אומר יכול לחזור בו. וחכמים אומרים אינו יכול לחזור בו. היה חייב לחבירו שבועה. ואומר לו דור לי בחיי ראשך. רבי מאיר אומר יכול לחזור בו. וחכמים אומרים אין יכול לחזור בו: ",
+ "ואלו הן הפסולין. המשחק בקוביא. והמלוה בריבית. ומפריחי יונים. וסוחרי שביעית. אמר רבי שמעון בתחלה היו קורין אותן אוספי שביעית. משרבו האנסין חזרו לקרותן סוחרי שביעית. אמר רבי יהודה אימתי. בזמן שאין להם אומנות אלא הוא. אבל יש להן אומנות שלא הוא. כשרין: ",
+ "ואלו הן הקרובין. אביו. ואחיו. ואחי אביו. ואחי אמו. ובעל אחותו ובעל אחות אביו. ובעל אחות אמו. ובעל אמו. וחמיו. וגיסו. הן ובניהן וחתניהן וחורגו לבדו. אמר רבי יוסי זו משנת רבי עקיבא. אבל משנה ראשונה. דודו. ובן דודו. וכל הראוי ליורשו וכל הקרוב לו באותה שעה. היה קרוב ונתרחק הרי זה כשר. ר' יהודה אומר אפילו מתה בתו ויש לו בנים ממנה. הרי זה קרוב: ",
+ "האוהב והשונא אוהב זה שושבינו. שונא. כל שלא דבר עמו שלשה ימים באיבה. אמרו לו. לא נחשדו ישראל על כך: ",
+ "כיצד בודקים את העדים. היו מכניסין אותן ומאיימין עליהן. ומוציאין את כל האדם לחוץ. ומשיירין את הגדול שבהן. ואומרים לו. אמור היאך אתה יודע שזה חייב לזה. אם אמר הוא אמר לי שאני חייב לו. איש פלוני אמר לי שהוא חייב לו. לא אמר כלום. עד שיאמר בפנינו הודה לו. שהוא חייב לו מאתים זוז. ואחר כך מכניסין את השני. ובודקים אותו. אם נמצאו דבריהם מכוונים. נושאין ונותנים בדבר. שנים אומרים זכאי ואחד אומר חייב. זכאי. שנים אומרים חייב ואחד אומר זכאי. חייב. אחד אומר זכאי ואחד אומר חייב. ואפילו שנים מזכין. או שנים מחייבין. ואחד אומר איני יודע. יוסיפו הדיינין: ",
+ "גמרו את הדבר היו מכניסין אותן הגדול שבדיינים אומר איש פלוני אתה זכאי. איש פלוני אתה חייב. ומנין לכשיצא אחד מן הדיינים לא יאמר אני מזכה וחבירי מחייבין אבל מה אעשה שחבירי רבו עלי. על זה נאמר (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך. ואומר (משלי יא, יג) הולך רכיל מגלה סוד: ",
+ "כל זמן שמביא ראיה. סותר את הדין. אמרו לו כל ראיות שיש לך הבא מכאן עד שלשים יום. מצא בתוך שלשים יום סותר. לאחר שלשים יום. אינו סותר. אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל מה יעשה זה שלא מצא בתוך שלשים ומצא לאחר שלשים. אמרו לו הבא עדים. ואמר אין לי עדים. אמרו הבא ראיה. ואמר אין לי ראיה. ולאחר זמן הביא ראיה ומצא עדים. הרי זה אינו כלום. אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל מה יעשה זה שלא היה יודע שיש לו עדים ומצא עדים לא היה יודע שיש לו ראיה ומצא ראיה. אמרו לו הבא עדים. אמר אין לי עדים. הבא ראיה ואמר אין לי ראיה. ראה שמתחייב בדין. ואמר קרבו פלוני ופלוני והעידוני. או שהוציא ראיה מתוך אפונדתו הרי זה אינו כלום: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "אחד דיני ממונות ואחד דיני נפשות בדרישה ובחקירה שנאמר (ויקרא כד, כב) משפט אחד יהיה לכם. מה בין דיני ממונות לדיני נפשות. דיני ממונות בשלשה. ודיני נפשות. בעשרים ושלשה. דיני ממונות פותחין בין לזכות בין לחובה. ודיני נפשות פותחין לזכות ואין פותחין לחובה. דיני ממונות מטין על פי אחד בין לזכות בין לחובה. ודיני נפשות מטין על פי אחד לזכות. ועל פי שנים לחובה. דיני ממונות מחזירין בין לזכות בין לחובה. דיני נפשות מחזירין לזכות ואין מחזירין לחובה. דיני ממונות הכל מלמדין זכות וחובה. דיני נפשות הכל מלמדין זכות ואין הכל מלמדין חובה. דיני ממונות המלמד חובה מלמד זכות. והמלמד זכות מלמד חובה. דיני נפשות המלמד חובה מלמד זכות. אבל המלמד זכות אין יכול לחזור וללמד חובה. דיני ממונות דנין ביום וגומרין בלילה. דיני נפשות דנין ביום וגומרין ביום. דיני ממונות גומרין בו ביום בין לזכות בין לחובה. דיני נפשות גומרין בו ביום לזכות. וביום שלאחריו לחובה. לפיכך אין דנין לא בערב שבת ולא בערב יום טוב: ",
+ "דיני הטומאות והטהרות מתחילין מן הגדול. דיני נפשות מתחילין מן הצד. הכל כשרין לדון דיני ממונות. ואין הכל כשרין לדון דיני נפשות. אלא כהנים לוים וישראלים המשיאין לכהונה: ",
+ "סנהדרין היתה כחצי גורן עגולה. כדי שיהו רואין זה את זה. ושני סופרי הדיינין עומדין לפניהם אחד מימין ואחד משמאל. וכותבין דברי המזכין ודברי המחייבין. רבי יהודה אומר שלשה. אחד כותב דברי המזכין. ואחד כותב דברי המחייבין והשלישי כותב דברי המזכין ודברי המחייבין: ",
+ "ושלש שורות של תלמידי חכמים יושבין לפניהם. כל אחד ואחד מכיר את מקומו. היו צריכין לסמוך סומכין מן הראשונה. אחד מן השניה בא לו לראשונה. ואחד מן השלישית בא לו לשניה. ובוררין להן עוד אחד מן הקהל ומושיבין אותו בשלישית. ולא היה יושב במקומו של ראשון. אלא יושב במקום הראוי לו: ",
+ "כיצד מאיימין את העדים על עדי נפשות. היו מכניסין אותן ומאיימין עליהן. שמא תאמרו מאומד. ומשמועה. עד מפי עד ומפי אדם נאמן שמענו. או שמא אי אתם יודעין שסופינו לבדוק אתכם בדרישה ובחקירה. הוו יודעין שלא כדיני ממונות דיני נפשות. דיני ממונות אדם נותן ממון ומתכפר לו. דיני נפשות דמו ודם זרעיותיו תלוין בו עד סוף העולם שכן מצינו בקין שהרג את אחיו. שנאמר (בראשית ד, י) דמי אחיך צועקים. אינו אומר דם אחיך אלא דמי אחיך. דמו ודם זרעיותיו. דבר אחר דמי אחיך שהיה דמו מושלך על העצים ועל האבנים. לפיכך נברא אדם יחידי ללמדך. שכל המאבד נפש אחת מישראל. מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו איבד עולם מלא. וכל המקיים נפש אחת מישראל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קיים עולם מלא. ומפני שלום הבריות. שלא יאמר אדם לחבירו אבא גדול מאביך. ושלא יהו מינין אומרים הרבה רשויות בשמים. ולהגיד גדולתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא. שאדם טובע כמה מטבעות בחותם אחד וכולן דומין זה לזה. ומלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא טבע כל אדם בחותמו של אדם הראשון ואין אחד מהן דומה לחבירו. לפיכך כל אחד ואחד חייב לומר בשבילי נברא העולם. ושמא תאמרו מה לנו ולצרה הזאת. והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא ה, א) והוא עד או ראה או ידע אם לא יגיד וגומר. ושמא תאמרו מה לנו לחוב בדמו של זה. והלא כבר נאמר (משלי יא, י) באבוד רשעים רנה: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "היו בודקין אותן בשבע חקירות באיזה שבוע. באיזו שנה. באיזה חדש. בכמה בחדש. באיזה יום. באיזו שעה. באיזה מקום. רבי יוסי אומר באיזה יום. באיזו שעה. באיזה מקום. מכירין אתם אותו. התריתם בו. העובד עבודה זרה. את מי עבד. ובמה עבד: ",
+ "כל המרבה בבדיקות הרי זה משובח. מעשה ובדק בן זכאי בעוקצי תאנים. ומה בין חקירות לבדיקות. חקירות. אחד אומר איני יודע עדותן בטלה. בדיקות. אחד אומר איני יודע ואפילו שנים אומרים אין אנו יודעין עדותן קיימת. אחד חקירות ואחד בדיקות בזמן שמכחישין זה את זה עדותן בטלה: ",
+ "אחד אומר בשנים בחדש. ואחד אומר בשלשה בחדש. עדותן קיימת. שזה יודע בעבורו של חדש. וזה אינו יודע בעבורו של חדש. אחד אומר בשלשה. ואחד אומר בחמשה. עדותן בטלה. אחד אומר בשתי שעות. ואחד אומר בשלש שעות. עדותן קיימת. אחד אומר בשלש. ואחד אומר בחמש עדותן בטלה. רבי יהודה אומר קיימת. אחד אומר בחמש. ואחד אומר בשבע. עדותן בטלה. שבחמש חמה במזרח. ובשבע חמה במערב: ",
+ "ואחר כך מכניסין את השני. ובודקין אותו. אם נמצאו דבריהם מכוונין. פותחין בזכות. אמר אחד מן העדים יש לי ללמד עליו זכות. או אחד מן התלמידים יש לי ללמד עליו חובה. משתקין אותו. אמר אחד מן התלמידים יש לי ללמד עליו זכות. מעלין אותו ומושיבין אותו ביניהן. ולא היה יורד משם כל היום כולו. אם יש ממש בדבריו שומעין לו. ואפילו הוא אומר יש לי ללמד על עצמי זכות. שומעין לו ובלבד שיש ממש בדבריו: ",
+ "אם מצאו לו זכות. פטרוהו. ואם לאו מעבירין דינו למחר. היו מזדווגין זוגות זוגות. וממעטין במאכל. ולא היו שותין יין כל היום. ונושאין ונותנין כל הלילה. ולמחרת משכימין ובאין לבית דין. המזכה אומר אני מזכה ומזכה אני במקומי. והמחייב אומר אני מחייב ומחייב אני במקומי. המלמד חובה. מלמד זכות. אבל המלמד זכות. אינו יכול לחזור וללמד חובה. טעו בדבר. שני סופרי הדיינין מזכירין אותן. אם מצאו לו זכות פטרוהו. ואם לאו עומדים למנין. שנים עשר מזכין. ואחד עשר מחייבין. זכאי. שנים עשר מחייבין ואחד עשר מזכין. ואפילו אחד עשר מזכין. ואחד עשר מחייבין. ואחד אומר איני יודע. ואפילו עשרים ושנים מזכין או מחייבין ואחד אומר איני יודע. יוסיפו הדיינין. עד כמה מוסיפין שנים שנים. עד שבעים ואחד. שלשים וששה מזכין. ושלשים וחמשה מחייבין. זכאי. שלשים וששה מחייבין. ושלשים וחמשה מזכין. דנין אלו כנגד אלו. עד שיראה אחד מן המחייבין. דברי המזכין: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "נגמר הדין. מוציאין אותו לסקלו. בית הסקילה היה חוץ לבית דין. שנאמר (ויקרא כד, ד) הוצא את המקלל. אחד עומד על פתח בית דין. והסודרין בידו. ואדם אחד רוכב הסוס רחוק ממנו. כדי שיהא רואהו. אומר אחד יש לי ללמד עליו זכות. הלה מניף בסודרין והסוס רץ ומעמידו. ואפילו הוא אומר יש לי ללמד על עצמי זכות. מחזירין אותו אפילו ארבעה וחמשה פעמים. ובלבד שיש ממש בדבריו. מצאו לו זכות. פטרוהו. ואם לאו. יוצא ליסקל. וכרוז יוצא לפניו. איש פלוני בן פלוני יוצא ליסקל. על שעבר עבירה פלונית. ופלוני ופלוני עדיו. כל מי שיודע לו זכות. יבא וילמד עליו: ",
+ "היה רחוק מבית הסקילה כעשר אמות. אומרים לו התודה שכן דרך המומתין מתודין. שכל המתודה יש לו חלק לעולם הבא. שכן מצינו בעכן שאמר לו יהושע (יהושע ז, יט) בני שים נא כבוד לאלהי ישראל ותן לו תודה וגומר. ויען עכן את יהושע ויאמר אמנה אנכי חטאתי וכזאת וגומר. ומנין שכיפר לו וידויו. שנאמר (יהושע ז, כה) ויאמר יהושע למה עכרתנו יעכרך ה' היום הזה. היום זה אתה עכור. ואי אתה עכור לעולם הבא. ואם אינו יודע להתודות. אומרים לו אמור. תהא מיתתי כפרה על כל עונותי. רבי יהודה אומר אם היה יודע שהוא מזומם. אומר תהא מיתתי כפרה על כל עונותי חוץ מעון זה. אמרו לו אם כן יהו כל אדם אומרים כך כדי לנקות את עצמן. ",
+ "היה רחוק מבית הסקילה ארבע אמות מפשיטין אותו את בגדיו. האיש מכסין אותו מלפניו והאשה מלפניה ומאחריה דברי רבי יהודה. וחכמים אומרים האיש נסקל ערום. ואין האשה נסקלת ערומה: ",
+ "בית הסקילה היה גבוה שתי קומות. אחד מן העדים דוחפו על מתניו. נהפך על לבו. הופכו על מתניו. אם מת בה יצא. ואם לאו. השני נוטל את האבן ונותנה על לבו. אם מת בה יצא. ואם לאו רגימתו בכל ישראל שנאמר (דברים יז, ז) יד העדים תהיה בו בראשונה להמיתו ויד כל העם באחרונה. כל הנסקלין נתלין. דברי רבי אליעזר. וחכמים אומרים אינו נתלה אלא המגדף והעובד עבודה זרה. האיש תולין אותו פניו כלפי העם והאשה פניה כלפי העץ. דברי רבי אליעזר. וחכמים אומרים האיש נתלה. ואין האשה נתלית. אמר להן רבי אליעזר והלא שמעון בן שטח תלה נשים באשקלון. אמרו לו שמנים נשים תלה. ואין דנין שנים ביום אחד. כיצד תולין אותו. משקעין את הקורה בארץ. והעץ יוצא ממנה. ומקיף שתי ידיו זו על גבי זו ותולה אותו. רבי יוסי אומר הקורה מוטה על הכותל. ותולה אותו כדרך שהטבחין עושין ומתירין אותו מיד. ואם לן עובר עליו בלא תעשה. שנאמר (דברים כא, כג) לא תלין נבלתו על העץ כי קבור תקברנו כי קללת אלהים תלוי וגומר. כלומר מפני מה זה תלוי מפני שבירך את השם ונמצא שם שמים מתחלל: ",
+ "אמר ר' מאיר בשעה שאדם מצטער. שכינה מה הלשון אומרת כביכול. קלני מראשי קלני מזרועי אם כן המקום מצטער על דמם של רשעים שנשפך קל וחומר על דמם של צדיקים. ולא זו בלבד אלא כל המלין את מתו עובר בלא תעשה. הלינו לכבודו להביא לו ארון ותכריכים. אינו עובר עליו. ולא היו קוברין אותו בקברות אבותיו. אלא שתי בתי קברות היו מתוקנין לבית דין. אחת לנהרגין ולנחנקין. ואחת לנסקלין ולנשרפין: ",
+ "נתעכל הבשר. מלקטין את העצמות. וקוברין אותן במקומן. והקרובים באים ושואלין בשלום הדיינים. ובשלום העדים. כלומר שאין בלבנו עליכם כלום. שדין אמת דנתם. ולא היו מתאבלין. אבל אוננין. שאין אנינות אלא בלב: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "ארבע מיתות. נמסרו לבית דין. סקילה. שרפה. הרג. וחנק. רבי שמעון אומר. שרפה. סקילה. חנק. והרג. זו מצות הנסקלין: ",
+ "מצות הנשרפין. היו משקעין אותו בזבל עד ארכובותיו. ונותנין סודר קשה לתוך הרכה וכורך על צוארו. זה מושך אצלו. וזה מושך אצלו. עד שפותח את פיו. ומדליק את הפתילה. וזורקה לתוך פיו. ויורדת לתוך מעיו. וחומרת את בני מעיו. רבי יהודה אומר אף הוא אם מת בידם לא היו מקיימין בו מצות שרפה. אלא פותחין את פיו בצבת שלא בטובתו. ומדליק את הפתילה. וזורקה לתוך פיו. ויורדת לתוך מעיו. וחומרת את בני מעיו. אמר רבי אליעזר בן צדוק מעשה בבת כהן אחת שזינתה והקיפוה חבילי זמורות. ושרפוה. אמרו לו מפני שלא היה בית דין של אותה שעה בקי: ",
+ "מצות הנהרגים היו מתיזין את ראשו בסייף כדרך שהמלכות עושה. רבי יהודה אומר ניוול הוא זה. אלא מניחין את ראשו על הסדן. וקוצץ בקופיץ אמרו לו אין מיתה מנוולת מזו. מצות הנחנקין. היו משקעין אותו בזבל. עד ארכובותיו. ונותנין סודר קשה לתוך הרכה וכורך על צוארו. זה מושך אצלו. וזה מושך אצלו. עד שנפשו יוצאה: ",
+ "אלו הן הנסקלין. הבא על האם. ועל אשת האב. ועל הכלה. ועל הזכור. ועל הבהמה. והאשה המביאה את הבהמה. והמגדף. והעובד עבודה זרה. והנותן מזרעו למולך. ובעל אוב וידעוני. והמחלל את השבת. והמקלל אביו ואמו. והבא על נערה המאורסה. והמסית. והמדיח. והמכשף. ובן סורר ומורה. הבא על האם. חייב עליה משום אם. ומשום אשת אב. רבי יהודה אומר אינו חייב אלא משום האם בלבד. הבא על אשת אב חייב עליה משום אשת אב. ומשום אשת איש. בין בחיי אביו בין לאחר מיתת אביו. בין מן האירוסין בין מן הנשואין. הבא על כלתו. חייב עליה משום כלתו. ומשום אשת איש. בין בחיי בנו בין לאחר מיתת בנו. בין מן האירוסין בין מן הנשואין. הבא על הזכור. ועל הבהמה. והאשה המביאה את הבהמה. אם אדם חטא. בהמה מה חטאת. אלא לפי שבאת לאדם תקלה על ידה. לפיכך אמר הכתוב תסקל. דבר אחר שלא תהא בהמה עוברת בשוק. ויאמרו זו היא שנסקל פלוני על ידה: ",
+ "המגדף אינו חייב עד שיפרש השם. אמר רבי יהושע בן קרחה בכל יום דנין את העדים. בכינוי. יכה יוסי את יוסי נגמר הדין לא הורגים בכינוי. אלא מוציאים כל אדם לחוץ. ושואלים את הגדול שבהן ואומרים לו אמור מה ששמעת בפירוש. והוא אומר. והדיינים עומדין על רגליהן וקורעין ולא מאחין. והשני אומר אף אני כמוהו. והשלישי אומר אף אני כמוהו: ",
+ "העובד עבודה זרה. אחד העובד. ואחד הזובח. ואחד המקטר. ואחד המנסך ואחד המשתחיה. ואחד המקבלו עליו לאלוה. והאומר לו אלי אתה. אבל המגפף והמנשק והמכבד. והמרבץ. והמרחץ הסך. המלביש. והמנעיל. עובר בלא תעשה. הנודר בשמו. והמקיים בשמו. עובר בלא תעשה. הפוער עצמו לבעל פעור. זו היא עבודתו. הזורק אבן למרקוליס. זו היא עבודתו: ",
+ "הנותן מזרעו למולך. אינו חייב עד שימסור למולך ויעביר באש. מסר למולך ולא העביר באש. העביר באש ולא מסר למולך. אינו חייב עד שימסור למולך ויעביר באש. בעל אוב. זה פיתום המדבר משיחיו וידעוני זה המדבר בפיו. הרי אלו בסקילה. והנשאל בהם באזהרה: ",
+ "המחלל את השבת. בדבר שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת. המקלל אביו ואמו אינו חייב עד שיקללם בשם. קללם בכינוי. ר' מאיר מחייב. וחכמים פוטרין: ",
+ "הבא על נערה המאורסה. אינו חייב עד שתהא נערה. בתולה מאורסה. והיא בבית אביה. באו עליה שנים. הראשון בסקילה. והשני בחנק: ",
+ "המסית. זה הדיוט. המסית את ההדיוט. אמר לו יש יראה במקום פלוני. כך אוכלת. כך שותה. כך מטיבה. כך מריעה. כל חייבי מיתות שבתורה אין מכמינין עליהם חוץ מזו. אמר לשנים. והן עדיו. מביאין אותו לבית דין וסוקלין אותו. אמר לאחד. הוא אומר יש לי חברים רוצים בכך. אם היה ערום ואינו יכול לדבר בפניהם. מכמינין לו עדים אחורי הגדר. והוא אומר לו אמור מה שאמרת לי ביחוד. והלה אומר לו. והוא אומר לו היאך נניח את אלהינו שבשמים ונלך ונעבוד עצים ואבנים. אם חוזר בו הרי זה מוטב. ואם אמר כך היא חובתנו. וכך יפה לנו. העומדין מאחורי הגדר מביאין אותו לבית דין וסוקלין אותו. האומר אעבוד. אלך ואעבוד. נלך ונעבוד. אזבח אלך ואזבח. נלך ונזבח. אקטיר. אלך ואקטיר. נלך ונקטיר. אנסך. אלך ואנסך. נלך וננסך. אשתחוה. אלך ואשתחוה. נלך ונשתחוה. המדיח זה האומר נלך ונעבוד עבודה זרה: ",
+ "המכשף העושה מעשה חייב. ולא האוחז את העינים. רבי עקיבא אומר משום רבי יהושע שנים לוקטין קישואין. אחד לוקט פטור. ואחד לוקט חייב. העושה מעשה חייב. האוחז את העינים פטור: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "בן סורר ומורה. מאימתי נעשה בן סורר ומורה. משיביא שתי שערות. ועד שיקיף זקן. התחתון ולא העליון. אלא שדברו חכמים בלשון נקיה. שנאמר (דברים כא, יח) כי יהיה לאיש בן. בן ולא בת. בן ולא איש. הקטן פטור שלא בא לכלל מצות: ",
+ "מאימתי חייב. משיאכל טרטימר בשר. וישתה חצי לוג יין האיטלקי. רבי יוסי אומר מנה בשר ולוג יין. אכל בחבורת מצוה. אכל בעבור החדש אכל מעשר שני בירושלם. אכל נבלות וטרפות. שקצים ורמשים. (אכל טבל. ומעשר ראשון שלא נטלה תרומתו. ומעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו). אכל דבר שהוא מצוה. ודבר שהוא עבירה. אכל כל מאכל ולא אכל בשר שתה כל משקה ולא שתה יין. אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיאכל בשר וישתה יין. שנאמר (דברים כא, כ) זולל וסובא. ואף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר. זכר לדבר שנאמר (משלי כג, כ) אל תהי בסובאי יין בזוללי בשר למו: ",
+ "גנב משל אביו ואכל ברשות אביו. משל אחרים ואכל ברשות אחרים. משל אחרים ואכל ברשות אביו. אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה. עד שיגנוב משל אביו. ויאכל ברשות אחרים. רבי יוסי בר רבי יהודה אומר עד שיגנוב משל אביו ומשל אמו. ",
+ "היה אביו רוצה ואמו אינו רוצה. אביו אינו רוצה ואמו רוצה. אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיהו שניהם רוצים. רבי יהודה אומר אם לא היתה אמו ראויה לאביו. אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה. היה אחד מהם גידם. או חגר. או אלם. או סומא. או חרש. אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה. שנאמר (דברים כא, יט) ותפשו בו אביו ואמו. ולא גדמין. והוציאו אותו. ולא חגרין. ואמרו. ולא אלמין. בננו זה. ולא סומין. איננו שומע בקולנו. ולא חרשין. מתרין בו בפני שלשה ומלקין אותו. חזר וקלקל. נדון בעשרים ושלשה. ואינו נסקל עד שיהו שם שלשה הראשונים. שנאמר (דברים כא, כ) בננו זה. זהו שלקה בפניכם. ברח עד שלא נגמר דינו ואחר כך הקיף זקן התחתון פטור. ואם משנגמר דינו ברח. ואחר כך הקיף זקן התחתון חייב: ",
+ "בן סורר ומורה נדון על שם סופו. ימות זכאי. ואל ימות חייב. שמיתתן של רשעים. הנאה להן. והנאה לעולם. ולצדיקים רע להן. ורע לעולם. יין ושינה לרשעים הנאה להם והנאה לעולם. ולצדיקים רע להן. ורע לעולם. פיזור לרשעים. הנאה להן. והנאה לעולם. ולצדיקים. רע להן ורע לעולם. כנוס לרשעים רע להן ורע לעולם. ולצדיקים. הנאה להן. והנאה לעולם. שקט לרשעים רע להן. ורע לעולם. ולצדיקים. הנאה להן. והנאה לעולם: ",
+ "הבא במחתרת. נדון על שם סופו. היה בא במחתרת. ושבר את החבית. אם יש לו דמים חייב. אם אין לו דמים פטור. ",
+ "ואלו הן שמצילין אותן בנפשן. הרודף אחר חבירו להרגו. אחר הזכור. ואחר הנערה המאורסה. אבל הרודף אחר בהמה. והמחלל את השבת. והעובד עבודה זרה. אין מצילין אותן בנפשן: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "ואלו הן הנשרפין. הבא על אשה ובתה. ובת כהן שזנתה. יש בכלל אשה ובתה. בתו. ובת בתו. ובת בנו. ובת אשתו ובת בתה. ובת בנה. חמותו. ואם חמותו ואם חמיו. ואלו הן הנהרגים. הרוצח ואנשי עיר הנדחת. רוצח שהכה את רעהו באבן או בברזל. וכבש עליו לתוך המים. או לתוך האור. ואינו יכול לעלות משם ומת חייב. דחפו לתוך המים. או לתוך האור ויכול לעלות משם ומת. פטור. שיסה בו את הכלב. שיסה בו את הנחש פטור. השיך בו את הנחש. רבי יהודה מחייב. וחכמים פוטרין. המכה את חברו. בין באבן בין באגרוף ואמדוהו למיתה והוקל ממה שהיה ולאחר מכאן הכביד ומת חייב. רבי נחמיה אומר פטור שרגלים לדבר: \n",
+ "נתכוין להרוג את הבהמה והרג את האדם. לעכו\"ם והרג את ישראל. לנפלים והרג את בן קיימא. פטור. נתכוין להכותו על מתניו ולא היה בו כדי להמית על מתניו. והלכה לו על לבו והיה בו כדי להמית על לבו. ומת פטור. נתכוין להכותו על לבו והיה בה כדי להמית על לבו. והלכה לה על מתניו ולא היה בה כדי להמית על מתניו. ומת פטור. נתכוין להכות את הגדול ולא היה בה כדי להמית הגדול. והלכה לה על הקטן והיה בה כדי להמית את הקטן. ומת פטור. נתכוין להכות את הקטן והיה בה כדי להמית את הקטן והלכה לה על הגדול ולא היה בה כדי להמית את הגדול ומת. פטור. אבל נתכוין להכות על מתניו והיה בה כדי להמית על מתניו. והלכה לה על לבו ומת חייב. נתכוין להכות את הגדול והיה בה כדי להמית את הגדול והלכה לה על הקטן ומת חייב. רבי שמעון אומר אפילו נתכוין להרוג את זה והרג את זה פטור: \n",
+ "רוצח שנתערב באחרים כולן פטורין. רבי יהודה אומר כונסין אותן לכיפה. כל חייבי מיתות שנתערבו זה בזה. נדונין בקלה. הנסקלין בנשרפין. רבי שמעון אומר נדונין בסקילה. שהשריפה חמורה. וחכמים אומרים נדונין בשריפה. שהסקילה חמורה. אמר להן רבי שמעון אילו לא היתה שריפה חמורה לא נתנה לבת כהן שזנתה. אמרו לו. אילו לא היתה סקילה חמורה. לא נתנה למגדף ולעובד עבודה זרה. הנהרגין בנחנקין. רבי שמעון אומר בסייף. וחכמים אומרים בחנק: \n",
+ "מי שנתחייב בשתי מיתות בית דין. נדון בחמורה. עבר עבירה שנתחייב. שתי מיתות. נדון בחמורה. רבי יוסי אומר נדון בזיקה הראשונה שבאה עליו: \n",
+ "מי שלקה ושנה. בית דין מכניסים אותו לכיפה. ומאכילין אותו שעורין עד שכריסו מתבקעת. ההורג נפש שלא בעדים. מכניסין אותו לכיפה ומאכילין אותו לחם צר ומים לחץ: \n",
+ "הגונב את הקסוה. והמקלל בקוסם. והבועל ארמית. קנאין פוגעין בו. כהן ששמש בטומאה אין אחיו הכהנים מביאין אותו לבית דין. אלא פרחי כהונה מוציאין אותו חוץ לעזרה. ומפציעין את מוחו בגזירין. זר ששמש במקדש. רבי עקיבא אומר בחנק. וחכמים אומרים בידי שמים: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא שנאמר (ישעיה ס, כא) ועמך כולם צדיקים לעולם יירשו ארץ נצר מטעי מעשי ידי להתפאר. ואלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא. האומר אין תחיית המתים מן התורה. ואין תורה מן השמים. ואפיקורס. רבי עקיבא אומר אף הקורא בספרים החיצונים. והלוחש על המכה ואומר (שמות טו, כו) כל המחלה אשר שמתי במצרים לא אשים עליך כי אני ה' רפאך. אבא שאול אומר אף ההוגה את השם באותיותיו: ",
+ "שלשה מלכים וארבעה הדיוטות. אין להם חלק לעולם הבא. שלשה מלכים. ירבעם. אחאב. ומנשה. רבי יהודה אומר מנשה יש לו חלק לעולם הבא שנאמר (ד\"ה ב' לג, יג) ויתפלל אליו ויעתר לו וישמע תחנתו וישיבהו ירושלים למלכותו. אמרו לו למלכותו השיבו. ולא לחיי העולם הבא השיבו. ארבעה הדיוטות בלעם. ודואג. ואחיתופל. וגחזי: ",
+ "דור המבול. אין להם חלק לעולם הבא. ואין עומדין בדין שנאמר (בראשית ו, ג) לא ידון רוחי באדם לעולם. לא דין. ולא רוח. דור הפלגה. אין להם חלק לעולם הבא. שנאמר (בראשית יא, ח) ויפץ ה' אותם משם על פני כל הארץ. ויפץ ה' אותם בעולם הזה. ומשם הפיצם ה'. לעולם הבא. אנשי סדום. אין להם חלק לעולם הבא שנאמר (בראשית יג, יג) ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים לה' מאד. רעים בעולם הזה. וחטאים לעולם הבא. אבל עומדין בדין. רבי נחמיה אומר אלו ואלו אין עומדין בדין. שנאמר (תהלים א, ה) על כן לא יקומו רשעים במשפט וחטאים בעדת צדיקים. על כן לא יקומו רשעים במשפט. זה דור המבול. וחטאים בעדת צדיקים. אלו אנשי סדום. אמרו לו אינם עומדים בעדת צדיקים. אבל עומדין בעדת רשעים. מרגלים. אין להם חלק לעולם הבא. שנאמר (במדבר יד, לז) וימותו האנשים מוציאי דבת הארץ רעה במגפה לפני ה'. וימותו. בעולם הזה. במגפה. בעולם הבא. דור המדבר. אין להם חלק לעולם הבא. ואין עומדין בדין. שנאמר (במדבר יד, לה) במדבר הזה יתמו ושם ימותו. דברי רבי עקיבא. רבי אליעזר אומר עליהם הוא אומר (תהלים נ, ה) אספו לי חסידי כורתי בריתי עלי זבח. עדת קרח אינה עתידה לעלות שנאמר (במדבר טז, לג) ותכס עליהם הארץ. בעולם הזה. ויאבדו מתוך הקהל. לעולם הבא. דברי רבי עקיבא. רבי אליעזר אומר עליהם הוא אומר (שמואל א' ב, ו) ה' ממית ומחיה מוריד שאול ויעל. עשרת השבטים אינן עתידין לחזור שנאמר (דברים כט, כז) וישליכם אל ארץ אחרת כיום הזה מה היום הזה. הולך ואינו חוזר. אף הם הולכים ואינם חוזרים. דברי רבי עקיבא. רבי אליעזר אומר מה היום מאפיל ומאיר. אף עשרת השבטים שאפל להן כך עתיד להאיר להן: ",
+ "אנשי עיר הנדחת. אין להם חלק לעולם הבא. שנאמר (דברים יג, יד) יצאו אנשים בני בליעל מקרבך וידיחו את יושבי עירם. ואינן נהרגים עד שיהיו מדיחיה מאותה העיר ומאותו השבט. ועד שיודח רובה. ועד שידיחום אנשים. הדיחוה נשים וקטנים. או שהודח מיעוטה. או שהיו מדיחיה חוצה לה. הרי אלו כיחידים. וצריכין שני עדים והתראה לכל אחד ואחד. זה חומר ביחידים. מבמרובים. שהיחידים בסקילה לפיכך ממונם פלט. והמרובים בסייף לפיכך ממונם אבד: ",
+ "(דברים יג, טז) הכה תכה את וגו'. החמרת והגמלת העוברת ממקום למקום. הרי אלו מצילין אותה החרם אותה ואת כל אשר בה וגו' מכאן אמרו נכסי צדיקים שבתוכה אובדין שבחוצה לה פליטין. ושל רשעים. בין שבתוכה. בין שבחוצה לה. הרי אלו אובדין: ",
+ "שנאמר (דברים יג, יז) ואת כל שללה תקבוץ אל תוך רחבה וגו'. אם אין לה רחוב. עושין לה רחוב. היתה רחבה חוצה לה. כונסין אותה לתוכה (שם) ושרפת באש את העיר ואת כל שללה כליל לה' אלהיך. שללה. ולא שלל שמים. מכאן אמרו ההקדשות שבה יפדו. ותרומות ירקבו. מעשר שני וכתבי הקדש יגנזו. כליל לה' אלהיך. אמר רבי שמעון אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אם אתם עושין דין בעיר הנדחת. מעלה אני עליכם כאילו אתם מעלין עולה כליל לפני. (דברים יג, טז) והיתה תל עולם לא תבנה עוד לא תעשה אפילו גנות ופרדסים. דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי. רבי עקיבא אומר לא תבנה עוד. לכמו שהיתה אינה נבנית. אבל נעשית היא גנות ופרדסים. (דברים יג, יח) ולא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם. שכל זמן שהרשעים בעולם. חרון אף בעולם. אבדו רשעים מן העולם. נסתלק חרון אף מן העולם: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "אלו הן הנחנקין. המכה אביו ואמו. וגונב נפש מישראל. וזקן ממרא על פי בית דין. ונביא השקר והמתנבא בשם עבודת כוכבים. והבא על אשת איש. וזוממי בת כהן. ובועלה. המכה אביו ואמו אינו חייב עד שיעשה בהן חבורה. זה חומר במקלל מבמכה. שהמקלל לאחר מיתה חייב. והמכה לאחר מיתה פטור. הגונב נפש מישראל אינו חייב עד שיכניסנו לרשותו. רבי יהודה אומר עד שיכניסנו לרשותו. וישתמש בו. שנאמר (דברים כד, ז) והתעמר בו ומכרו. הגונב את בנו רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה מחייב. וחכמים פוטרין. גנב מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין. רבי יהודה מחייב וחכמים פוטרין: ",
+ "זקן ממרא על פי בית דין. שנאמר (דברים יז, ח) כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט וגו'. שלשה בתי דינין היו שם. אחד יושב על פתח הר הבית ואחד יושב על פתח העזרה. ואחד יושב בלשכת הגזית. באים לזה שעל פתח הר הבית ואומר כך דרשתי וכך דרשו חבירי. כך לימדתי וכך לימדו חבירי. אם שמעו אומרים להם. ואם לאו באין להם לאותן שעל פתח העזרה. ואומר כך דרשתי וכך דרשו חבירי. כך לימדתי וכך לימדו חבירי. אם שמעו אומרים להם. ואם לאו אלו ואלו באים לבית דין הגדול שבלשכת הגזית שממנו יוצאת תורה לכל ישראל. שנאמר (דברים יז, י) מן המקום ההוא אשר יבחר ה'. חזר לעירו ושנה. ולימד כדרך שהיה למד פטור. ואם הורה לעשות. חייב. שנאמר (דברים יז, יב) והאיש אשר יעשה בזדון. אינו חייב עד שיורה לעשות. תלמיד שהורה לעשות. פטור. נמצא חומרו קולו: ",
+ "חומר בדברי סופרים מבדברי תורה. האומר אין תפילין כדי לעבור על דברי תורה פטור. חמשה טוטפות להוסיף על דברי סופרים. חייב. ",
+ "אין ממיתין אותו לא בבית דין שבעירו. ולא בבית דין שביבנה. אלא מעלין אותו לבית דין הגדול שבירושלים. ומשמרין אותו עד הרגל. וממיתין אותו ברגל. שנאמר (דברים יז, יג) וכל העם ישמעו ויראו ולא יזידון עוד. דברי רבי עקיבא. רבי יהודה אומר אין מענין את דינו של זה. אלא ממיתין אותו מיד. וכותבין ושולחין שלוחים בכל המקומות. איש פלוני בן איש פלוני נתחייב מיתה בבית דין: ",
+ "נביא השקר. המתנבא על מה שלא שמע. ומה שלא נאמר לו. מיתתו בידי אדם. אבל הכובש את נבואתו. והמוותר על דברי נביא. ונביא שעבר על דברי עצמו. מיתתו בידי שמים. שנאמר (דברים יח, יט) אנכי אדרוש מעמו: ",
+ "המתנבא בשם עבודה זרה ואומר כך אמרה עבודה זרה אפילו כיון את ההלכה. לטמא את הטמא. ולטהר את הטהור. הבא על אשת איש כיון שנכנסה לרשות הבעל לנשואין. אף על פי שלא נבעלה הבא עליה הרי זה בחנק. וזוממי בת כהן ובועלה. שכל הזוממין מקדימין לאותה מיתה. חוץ מזוממי בת כהן ובועלה: "
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/Hebrew/Torat Emet 357.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/Hebrew/Torat Emet 357.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93552d6a9af1b78e4957fae872eee88b67a084b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/Hebrew/Torat Emet 357.json
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+{
+ "language": "he",
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads",
+ "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 357",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 3.0,
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 357",
+ "actualLanguage": "he",
+ "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+ "isBaseText": true,
+ "isSource": true,
+ "isPrimary": true,
+ "direction": "rtl",
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. גְּזֵלוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. נֶזֶק וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וְהַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ דִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת: \n",
+ "מַכּוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. עִבּוּר הַחֹדֶשׁ, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. עִבּוּר הַשָּׁנָה, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מַתְחִילִין, וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין, וְגוֹמְרִין בְּשִׁבְעָה. וְאִם גָּמְרוּ בִשְׁלֹשָׁה, מְעֻבֶּרֶת: \n",
+ "סְמִיכַת זְקֵנִים וַעֲרִיפַת עֶגְלָה, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה. הַחֲלִיצָה וְהַמֵּאוּנִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. נֶטַע רְבָעִי וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין דָּמָיו יְדוּעִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הָעֲרָכִין הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד מֵהֶן כֹּהֵן. וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת, תִּשְׁעָה וְכֹהֵן. וְאָדָם, כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן: \n",
+ "דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא כ) וְהָרַגְתָּ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְאוֹמֵר (שם) וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה תַּהֲרֹגוּ. שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת, כְּמִיתַת בְּעָלִים כָּךְ מִיתַת הַשּׁוֹר. הַזְּאֵב וְהָאֲרִי, הַדֹּב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס וְהַנָּחָשׁ, מִיתָתָן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם לְהָרְגָן, זָכָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מִיתָתָן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה: \n",
+ "אֵין דָּנִין לֹא אֶת הַשֵּׁבֶט וְלֹא אֶת נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר וְלֹא אֶת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין עוֹשִׂין סַנְהֶדְרִיּוֹת לַשְּׁבָטִים, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בַּסְּפָר, וְלֹא שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתָּיִם: \n",
+ "סַנְהֶדְרִי גְדוֹלָה הָיְתָה שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, וּקְטַנָּה שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וּמִנַּיִן לַגְּדוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יא) אֶסְפָה לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמֹשֶׁה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן, הֲרֵי שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שִׁבְעִים. וּמִנַּיִן לַקְּטַנָּה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם לה) וְשָׁפְטוּ הָעֵדָה וְגוֹ' וְהִצִּילוּ הָעֵדָה, עֵדָה שׁוֹפֶטֶת וְעֵדָה מַצֶּלֶת, הֲרֵי כָאן עֶשְׂרִים. וּמִנַּיִן לָעֵדָה שֶׁהִיא עֲשָׂרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יד) עַד מָתַי לָעֵדָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת, יָצְאוּ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב. וּמִנַּיִן לְהָבִיא עוֹד שְׁלֹשָׁה, מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג) לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְרָעֹת, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁאֶהְיֶה עִמָּהֶם לְטוֹבָה, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (שם) אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת, לֹא כְהַטָּיָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה הַטָּיָתְךָ לְרָעָה. הַטָּיָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה עַל פִּי אֶחָד, הַטָּיָתְךָ לְרָעָה עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁקוּל, מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶם עוֹד אֶחָד, הֲרֵי כָאן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְכַמָּה יְהֵא בְעִיר וּתְהֵא רְאוּיָה לְסַנְהֶדְרִין, מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, מָאתַיִם וּשְׁלשִׁים, כְּנֶגֶד שָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרוֹת: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל דָּן וְדָנִין אוֹתוֹ, מֵעִיד וּמְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ, חוֹלֵץ וְחוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וּמְיַבְּמִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲבָל הוּא אֵינוֹ מְיַבֵּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בָּאַלְמָנָה. מֵת לוֹ מֵת, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא אַחַר הַמִּטָּה, אֶלָּא הֵן נִכְסִין וְהוּא נִגְלֶה, הֵן נִגְלִין וְהוּא נִכְסֶה, וְיוֹצֵא עִמָּהֶן עַד פֶּתַח הָעִיר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא) וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מְנַחֵם אֲחֵרִים, דֶּרֶךְ כָּל הָעָם עוֹבְרִין בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה וְהַמְמֻנֶּה מְמַצְּעוֹ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הָעָם. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מִתְנַחֵם מֵאֲחֵרִים, כָּל הָעָם אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אָנוּ כַפָּרָתְךָ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶן תִּתְבָּרְכוּ מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם. וּכְשֶׁמַּבְרִין אוֹתוֹ, כָּל הָעָם מְסֻבִּין עַל הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא מֵסֵב עַל הַסַּפְסָל: \n",
+ "הַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא דָן וְלֹא דָנִין אוֹתוֹ, לֹא מֵעִיד וְלֹא מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ, לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא חוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. לֹא מְיַבֵּם וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם רָצָה לַחֲלֹץ אוֹ לְיַבֵּם, זָכוּר לָטוֹב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וְאֵין נוֹשְׂאִין אַלְמָנָתוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, נוֹשֵׂא הַמֶּלֶךְ אַלְמָנָתוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְדָוִד שֶׁנָּשָׂא אַלְמָנָתוֹ שֶׁל שָׁאוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל ב יב) וָאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת בֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ וְאֶת נְשֵׁי אֲדֹנֶיךָ בְּחֵיקֶךָ: \n",
+ "מֵת לוֹ מֵת, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִפֶּתַח פַּלְטְרִין שֶׁלּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם רוֹצֶה לָצֵאת אַחַר הַמִּטָּה, יוֹצֵא, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְדָוִד שֶׁיָּצָא אַחַר מִטָּתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְנֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם ג) וְהַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד הֹלֵךְ אַחֲרֵי הַמִּטָּה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא הָיָה הַדָּבָר אֶלָּא לְפַיֵּס אֶת הָעָם. וּכְשֶׁמַּבְרִין אוֹתוֹ, כָּל הָעָם מְסֻבִּין עַל הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא מֵסֵב עַל הַדַּרְגָּשׁ: \n",
+ "וּמוֹצִיא לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. וּפוֹרֵץ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דֶרֶךְ, וְאֵין מְמַחִין בְּיָדוֹ. דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין לוֹ שִׁעוּר. וְכָל הָעָם בּוֹזְזִין וְנוֹתְנִין לְפָנָיו, וְהוּא נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ. לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ נָשִׁים (דברים יז), אֶלָּא שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מַרְבֶּה הוּא לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מְסִירוֹת אֶת לִבּוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ אַחַת וּמְסִירָה אֶת לִבּוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂאֶנָּה. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (דברים יז) וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ נָשִׁים, אֲפִלּוּ כַאֲבִיגָיִל. לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ סוּסִים (שם), אֶלָּא כְדֵי מֶרְכַּבְתּוֹ. וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ מְאֹד (שם), אֶלָּא כְדֵי לִתֵּן אַפְסַנְיָא. וְכוֹתֵב לוֹ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה לִשְׁמוֹ. יוֹצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה, מוֹצִיאָהּ עִמּוֹ. נִכְנָס, מַכְנִיסָהּ עִמּוֹ. יוֹשֵׁב בַּדִּין, הִיא עִמּוֹ. מֵסֵב, הִיא כְנֶגְדּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וְהָיְתָה עִמּוֹ וְקָרָא בוֹ כָּל יְמֵי חַיָּיו: \n",
+ "אֵין רוֹכְבִין עַל סוּסוֹ, וְאֵין יוֹשְׁבִין עַל כִּסְאוֹ, וְאֵין מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּשַׁרְבִיטוֹ, וְאֵין רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא מִסְתַּפֵּר וְלֹא כְשֶׁהוּא עָרֹם וְלֹא בְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ, שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. זֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד וְזֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד, וּשְׁנֵיהֶן בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שְׁנֵי דַיָּנִין בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד. זֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמֵּבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִין אוֹ פְסוּלִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים אוֹ מֻמְחִין, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן. זֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִים אוֹ פְסוּלִים. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן: \n",
+ "אָמַר לוֹ נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אַבָּא, נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אָבִיךָ, נֶאֱמָנִין עָלַי שְׁלֹשָׁה רוֹעֵי בָקָר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ. הָיָה חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁבוּעָה וְאָמַר לוֹ דּוֹר לִי בְחַיֵּי רֹאשְׁךָ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ: \n",
+ "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִין, הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקֻבְיָא, וְהַמַּלְוֶה בְרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בִּתְחִלָּה הָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתָן אוֹסְפֵי שְׁבִיעִית, מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָאַנָּסִין, חָזְרוּ לִקְרוֹתָן סוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אֻמָּנוּת אֶלָּא הִיא, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהֶן אֻמָּנוּת שֶׁלֹּא הִיא, כְּשֵׁרִין: \n",
+ "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַקְּרוֹבִין, אָבִיו וְאָחִיו וַאֲחִי אָבִיו וַאֲחִי אִמּוֹ וּבַעַל אֲחוֹתוֹ וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וּבַעַל אִמּוֹ וְחָמִיו וְגִיסוֹ, הֵן וּבְנֵיהֶן וְחַתְנֵיהֶן, וְחוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, זוֹ מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אֲבָל מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, דּוֹדוֹ וּבֶן דּוֹדוֹ. וְכָל הָרָאוּי לְיָרְשׁוֹ, וְכָל הַקָּרוֹב לוֹ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. הָיָה קָרוֹב וְנִתְרַחֵק, הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מֵתָה בִתּוֹ וְיֶשׁ לוֹ בָנִים מִמֶּנָּה, הֲרֵי זֶה קָרוֹב: \n",
+ "הָאוֹהֵב וְהַשּׂוֹנֵא. אוֹהֵב, זֶה שׁוּשְׁבִינוֹ. שׂוֹנֵא, כָּל שֶׁלֹּא דִבֶּר עִמּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בְּאֵיבָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל כָּךְ: \n",
+ "כֵּיצַד בּוֹדְקִים אֶת הָעֵדִים, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לַחוּץ, וּמְשַׁיְּרִין אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר הֵיאַךְ אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּב לָזֶה. אִם אָמַר, הוּא אָמַר לִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אָמַר לִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר, בְּפָנֵינוּ הוֹדָה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִים אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִים, נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בַּדָּבָר. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים זַכַּאי, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חַיָּב, זַכַּאי. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים חַיָּב, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי, חַיָּב. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חַיָּב, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ שְׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, יוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּנִין: \n",
+ "גָּמְרוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן. הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּדַּיָּנִים אוֹמֵר, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אַתָּה זַכַּאי, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אַתָּה חַיָּב. וּמִנַּיִן לִכְשֶׁיֵּצֵא אֶחָד מִן הַדַּיָּנִים לֹא יֹאמַר אֲנִי מְזַכֶּה וַחֲבֵרַי מְחַיְּבִין אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה שֶׁחֲבֵרַי רַבּוּ עָלָי, עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּךָ (ויקרא יט), וְאוֹמֵר הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל מְגַלֶּה סּוֹד (משלי יא): \n",
+ "כָּל זְמַן שֶׁמֵּבִיא רְאָיָה, סוֹתֵר אֶת הַדִּין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, כָּל רְאָיוֹת שֶׁיֶּשׁ לְךָ הָבֵא מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. מָצָא בְתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, סוֹתֵר. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא מָצָא בְתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמָצָא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ הָבֵא עֵדִים וְאָמַר אֵין לִי עֵדִים, אָמְרוּ הָבֵא רְאָיָה וְאָמַר אֵין לִי רְאָיָה, וּלְאַחַר זְמָן הֵבִיא רְאָיָה וּמָצָא עֵדִים, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ כְלוּם. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים וּמָצָא עֵדִים, לֹא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ רְאָיָה וּמָצָא רְאָיָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ הָבֵא עֵדִים, אָמַר אֵין לִי עֵדִים, הָבֵא רְאָיָה וְאָמַר אֵין לִי רְאָיָה, רָאָה שֶׁמִּתְחַיֵּב בַּדִּין וְאָמַר קִרְבוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְהַעִידוּנִי, אוֹ שֶׁהוֹצִיא רְאָיָה מִתּוֹךְ אֲפֻנְדָּתוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ כְלוּם: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. מַה בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת פּוֹתְחִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת פּוֹתְחִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד לִזְכוּת וְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחֲזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַחֲזִירִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְאֵין הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת וְהַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת מְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּיּוֹם. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם לִזְכוּת וּבְיוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו לְחוֹבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין לֹא בְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב: \n",
+ "דִּינֵי הַטֻּמְאוֹת וְהַטָּהֳרוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַצָּד. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֵין הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, אֶלָּא כֹהֲנִים, לְוִיִּם, וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים הַמַּשִּׂיאִין לַכְּהֻנָּה: \n",
+ "סַנְהֶדְרִין הָיְתָה כַּחֲצִי גֹרֶן עֲגֻלָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ רוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וּשְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין עוֹמְדִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, אֶחָד מִיָּמִין וְאֶחָד מִשְּׂמֹאל, וְכוֹתְבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין, וְאֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי כוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין: \n",
+ "וְשָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים יוֹשְׁבִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מַכִּיר אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. הָיוּ צְרִיכִין לִסְמֹךְ, סוֹמְכִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנִיָּה בָּא לוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּא לוֹ לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּבוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד מִן הַקָּהָל וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בַשְּׁלִישִׁית. וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לוֹ: \n",
+ "כֵּיצַד מְאַיְּמִין אֶת הָעֵדִים עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן. שֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מֵאֹמֶד, וּמִשְּׁמוּעָה, עֵד מִפִּי עֵד וּמִפִּי אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שָׁמַעְנוּ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אִי אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לִבְדֹּק אֶתְכֶם בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה. הֱווּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁלֹּא כְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, אָדָם נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְקַיִן שֶׁהָרַג אֶת אָחִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ד) דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים, אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר דַּם אָחִיךָ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר, דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, שֶׁהָיָה דָמוֹ מֻשְׁלָךְ עַל הָעֵצִים וְעַל הָאֲבָנִים. לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי, לְלַמֶּדְךָ, שֶׁכָּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ אִבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וְכָל הַמְקַיֵּם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ קִיֵּם עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ אַבָּא גָדוֹל מֵאָבִיךָ. וְשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִינִין אוֹמְרִים, הַרְבֵּה רָשֻׁיּוֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם. וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדֻלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְכֻלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כָּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּב לוֹמַר, בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ה) וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְגוֹ'. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ לָחוּב בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (משלי יא) וּבַאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "הָיוּ בוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת, בְּאֵיזֶה שָׁבוּעַ, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁנָה, בְּאֵיזֶה חֹדֶשׁ, בְּכַמָּה בַחֹדֶשׁ, בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁעָה, בְּאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁעָה, בְּאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם. מַכִּירִין אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ. הִתְרֵיתֶם בּוֹ. הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֶת מִי עָבַד, וּבַמֶּה עָבָד: \n",
+ "כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִבְדִיקוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח. מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָדַק בֶּן זַכַּאי בְּעֻקְצֵי תְאֵנִים. וּמַה בֵּין חֲקִירוֹת לִבְדִיקוֹת. חֲקִירוֹת, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. בְּדִיקוֹת, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין, עֵדוּתָן קַיָּמֶת. אֶחָד חֲקִירוֹת וְאֶחָד בְּדִיקוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה: \n",
+ "אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁנַיִם בַּחֹדֶשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה בַחֹדֶשׁ, עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת, שֶׁזֶּה יוֹדֵעַ בְּעִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל חֹדֶשׁ וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּעִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל חֹדֶשׁ. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בַּחֲמִשָּׁה, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׁעוֹת וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁעוֹת, עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּשָׁלֹשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּחָמֵשׁ, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, קַיָּמֶת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּחָמֵשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּשֶׁבַע, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, שֶׁבְּחָמֵשׁ חַמָּה בַמִּזְרָח וּבְשֶׁבַע חַמָּה בַמַּעֲרָב: \n",
+ "וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִין, פּוֹתְחִין בִּזְכוּת. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו חוֹבָה, מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בֵינֵיהֶן, וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד מִשָּׁם כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ. אִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו: \n",
+ "אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ. וְאִם לָאו, מַעֲבִירִין דִּינוֹ לְמָחָר. הָיוּ מִזְדַּוְּגִין זוּגוֹת זוּגוֹת, וּמְמַעֲטִין בְּמַאֲכָל, וְלֹא הָיוּ שׁוֹתִין יַיִן כָּל הַיּוֹם, וְנוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְלַמָּחֳרָת מַשְׁכִּימִין וּבָאִין לְבֵית דִּין. הַמְזַכֶּה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְזַכֶּה וּמְזַכֶּה אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי, וְהַמְחַיֵּב אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְחַיֵּב וּמְחַיֵּב אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי. הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. טָעוּ בְדָּבָר, שְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן. אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ. וְאִם לָאו, עוֹמְדִים לְמִנְיָן. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין, זַכַּאי. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין, וַאֲפִלּוּ אַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, וַאֲפִלּוּ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, יוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּנִין. עַד כַּמָּה מוֹסִיפִין, שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם עַד שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְזַכִּין וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְחַיְּבִין, זַכַּאי. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְחַיְּבִין וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְזַכִּין, דָּנִין אֵלּוּ כְּנֶגֶד אֵלּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אֶחָד מִן הַמְחַיְּבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "נִגְמַר הַדִּין, מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְסָקְלוֹ. בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל. אֶחָד עוֹמֵד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין וְהַסּוּדָרִין בְּיָדוֹ, וְאָדָם אֶחָד רוֹכֵב הַסּוּס רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא רוֹאֵהוּ. אוֹמֵר אֶחָד יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, הַלָּה מֵנִיף בַּסּוּדָרִין וְהַסּוּס רָץ וּמַעֲמִידוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת, מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו. מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ, וְאִם לָאו, יוֹצֵא לִסָּקֵל. וְכָרוֹז יוֹצֵא לְפָנָיו, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי יוֹצֵא לִסָּקֵל עַל שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה פְלוֹנִית, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו, כָּל מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לוֹ זְכוּת יָבֹא וִילַמֵּד עָלָיו: \n",
+ "הָיָה רָחוֹק מִבֵּית הַסְּקִילָה כְּעֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הִתְוַדֵּה, שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ הַמּוּמָתִין מִתְוַדִּין, שֶׁכָּל הַמִּתְוַדֶּה יֶשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְעָכָן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, בְּנִי שִׂים נָא כָבוֹד לַה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתֶן לוֹ תוֹדָה וְגוֹ' וַיַּעַן עָכָן אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וַיֹּאמַר אָמְנָה אָנֹכִי חָטָאתִי לַה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָזֹאת וְגוֹ' (יהושע ז). וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁכִּפֶּר לוֹ וִדּוּיוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מֶה עֲכַרְתָּנוּ יַעְכָּרְךָ ה' בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה. הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אַתָּה עָכוּר, וְאִי אַתָּה עָכוּר לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְהִתְוַדּוֹת, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ, אֱמֹר תְּהֵא מִיתָתִי כַפָּרָה עַל כָּל עֲוֹנוֹתָי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא מְזֻמָּם, אוֹמֵר תְּהֵא מִיתָתִי כַּפָּרָה עַל כָּל עֲוֹנוֹתַי חוּץ מֵעָוֹן זֶה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִם כֵּן, יְהוּ כָל אָדָם אוֹמְרִים כָּךְ כְּדֵי לְנַקּוֹת אֶת עַצְמָן: \n",
+ "הָיָה רָחוֹק מִבֵּית הַסְּקִילָה אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, מַפְשִׁיטִין אוֹתוֹ אֶת בְּגָדָיו. הָאִישׁ, מְכַסִּין אוֹתוֹ מִלְּפָנָיו. וְהָאִשָּׁה, מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּמֵאַחֲרֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הָאִישׁ נִסְקָל עָרֹם וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִסְקֶלֶת עֲרֻמָּה: \n",
+ "בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה גָבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי קוֹמוֹת. אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים דּוֹחֲפוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. נֶהְפַּךְ עַל לִבּוֹ, הוֹפְכוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, הַשֵּׁנִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, רְגִימָתוֹ בְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה. כָּל הַנִּסְקָלִין נִתְלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ נִתְלֶה אֶלָּא הַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הָאִישׁ תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי הָעָם, וְהָאִשָּׁה פָּנֶיהָ כְלַפֵּי הָעֵץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הָאִישׁ נִתְלֶה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִתְלֵית. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַהֲלֹא שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח תָּלָה נָשִׁים בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, שְׁמֹנִים נָשִׁים תָּלָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין שְׁנַיִם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. כֵּיצַד תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ, מְשַׁקְּעִין אֶת הַקּוֹרָה בָאָרֶץ וְהָעֵץ יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה, וּמַקִּיף שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַקּוֹרָה מֻטָּה עַל הַכֹּתֶל, וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַטַּבָּחִין עוֹשִׂין. וּמַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וְאִם לָן, עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ כִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ כִּי קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים תָּלוּי וְגוֹ'. כְּלוֹמַר, מִפְּנֵי מָה זֶה תָלוּי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּרַךְ אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְנִמְצָא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם מִתְחַלֵּל: \n",
+ "אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָדָם מִצְטַעֵר, שְׁכִינָה מַה הַלָּשׁוֹן אוֹמֶרֶת כִּבְיָכוֹל, קַלַּנִי מֵרֹאשִׁי, קַלַּנִי מִזְּרוֹעִי. אִם כֵּן הַמָּקוֹם מִצְטַעֵר עַל דָּמָם שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים שֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ, קַל וָחֹמֶר עַל דָּמָם שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים. וְלֹא זוֹ בִלְבַד, אֶלָּא כָּל הַמֵּלִין אֶת מֵתוֹ, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הֱלִינוֹ לִכְבוֹדוֹ לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִים, אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. וְלֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּקִבְרוֹת אֲבוֹתָיו, אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי בָתֵּי קְבָרוֹת הָיוּ מְתֻקָּנִין לְבֵית דִּין, אַחַת לַנֶּהֱרָגִין וְלַנֶּחֱנָקִין וְאַחַת לַנִּסְקָלִין וְלַנִּשְׂרָפִין: \n",
+ "נִתְעַכֵּל הַבָּשָׂר, מְלַקְּטִין אֶת הָעֲצָמוֹת וְקוֹבְרִין אוֹתָן בִּמְקוֹמָן. וְהַקְּרוֹבִים בָּאִים וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹם הַדַּיָּנִים וּבִשְׁלוֹם הָעֵדִים, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין בְּלִבֵּנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם כְּלוּם, שֶׁדִּין אֱמֶת דַּנְתֶּם. וְלֹא הָיוּ מִתְאַבְּלִין, אֲבָל אוֹנְנִין, שֶׁאֵין אֲנִינוּת אֶלָּא בַלֵּב: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת נִמְסְרוּ לְבֵית דִּין, סְקִילָה, שְׂרֵפָה, הֶרֶג, וָחֶנֶק. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׂרֵפָה, סְקִילָה, חֶנֶק, וָהֶרֶג. זוֹ מִצְוַת הַנִּסְקָלִין: ",
+ "מִצְוַת הַנִּשְׂרָפִין, הָיוּ מְשַׁקְּעִין אוֹתוֹ בַזֶּבֶל עַד אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו וְנוֹתְנִין סוּדָר קָשָׁה לְתוֹךְ הָרַכָּה וְכוֹרֵךְ עַל צַוָּארוֹ. זֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ עַד שֶׁפּוֹתֵחַ אֶת פִּיו, וּמַדְלִיק אֶת הַפְּתִילָה וְזוֹרְקָהּ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו וְיוֹרֶדֶת לְתוֹךְ מֵעָיו וְחוֹמֶרֶת אֶת בְּנֵי מֵעָיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף הוּא אִם מֵת בְּיָדָם לֹא הָיוּ מְקַיְּמִין בּוֹ מִצְוַת שְׂרֵפָה, אֶלָּא פוֹתְחִין אֶת פִּיו בִּצְבָת שֶׁלֹּא בְטוֹבָתוֹ וּמַדְלִיק אֶת הַפְּתִילָה וְזוֹרְקָהּ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו וְיוֹרֶדֶת לְתוֹךְ מֵעָיו וְחוֹמֶרֶת אֶת בְּנֵי מֵעָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן צָדוֹק, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבַת כֹּהֵן אַחַת שֶׁזִּנְּתָה, וְהִקִּיפוּהָ חֲבִילֵי זְמוֹרוֹת וּשְׂרָפוּהָ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בֵית דִּין שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה בָּקִי: ",
+ "מִצְוַת הַנֶּהֱרָגִים, הָיוּ מַתִּיזִין אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בְסַיִף כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמַּלְכוּת עוֹשָׂה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, נִוּוּל הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מַנִּיחִין אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ עַל הַסַּדָּן וְקוֹצֵץ בְּקוֹפִיץ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין מִיתָה מְנֻוֶּלֶת מִזּוֹ. מִצְוַת הַנֶּחֱנָקִין, הָיוּ מְשַׁקְּעִין אוֹתוֹ בַזֶּבֶל עַד אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו וְנוֹתְנִין סוּדָר קָשָׁה לְתוֹךְ הָרַכָּה וְכוֹרֵךְ עַל צַוָּארוֹ, זֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ, עַד שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ יוֹצְאָה: ",
+ "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּסְקָלִין, הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת הָאָב, וְעַל הַכַּלָּה, וְעַל הַזְּכוּר, וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהַמְגַדֵּף, וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ, וּבַעַל אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי, וְהַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְהַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְהַבָּא עַל נַעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָסָה, וְהַמֵּסִית, וְהַמַּדִּיחַ, וְהַמְכַשֵּׁף, וּבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵם וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם הָאֵם בִּלְבָד. הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אָב חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו, בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. הַבָּא עַל כַּלָּתוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם כַּלָּתוֹ וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי בְנוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת בְּנוֹ, בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. הַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, אִם אָדָם חָטָא, בְּהֵמָה מֶה חָטָאת, אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁבָּאת לָאָדָם תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדָהּ, לְפִיכָךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב תִּסָּקֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא בְּהֵמָה עוֹבֶרֶת בַּשּׁוּק וְיֹאמְרוּ זוֹ הִיא שֶׁנִּסְקַל פְּלוֹנִי עַל יָדָהּ: ",
+ "הַמְגַדֵּף אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ הַשֵּׁם. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה, בְּכָל יוֹם דָּנִין אֶת הָעֵדִים בְּכִנּוּי יַכֶּה יוֹסֵי אֶת יוֹסֵי. נִגְמַר הַדִּין, לֹא הוֹרְגִים בְּכִנּוּי, אֶלָּא מוֹצִיאִים כָּל אָדָם לַחוּץ וְשׁוֹאֲלִים אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁשָּׁמַעְתָּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר, וְהַדַּיָּנִים עוֹמְדִין עַל רַגְלֵיהֶן וְקוֹרְעִין וְלֹא מְאַחִין. וְהַשֵּׁנִי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ: ",
+ "הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֶחָד הָעוֹבֵד, וְאֶחָד הַזּוֹבֵחַ, וְאֶחָד הַמְקַטֵּר, וְאֶחָד הַמְנַסֵּךְ, וְאֶחָד הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה, וְאֶחָד הַמְקַבְּלוֹ עָלָיו לֶאֱלוֹהַּ, וְהָאוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵלִי אָתָּה. אֲבָל הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק וְהַמְכַבֵּד וְהַמְּרַבֵּץ וְהַמַּרְחִיץ, הַסָּךְ, הַמַּלְבִּישׁ וְהַמַּנְעִיל, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמוֹ וְהַמְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁמוֹ, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הַפּוֹעֵר עַצְמוֹ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר, זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ. הַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לְמַרְקוּלִיס, זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ: ",
+ "הַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּמְסֹר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְיַעֲבִיר בָּאֵשׁ. מָסַר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְלֹא הֶעֱבִיר בָּאֵשׁ, הֶעֱבִיר בָּאֵשׁ וְלֹא מָסַר לַמֹּלֶךְ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב, עַד שֶׁיִּמְסֹר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְיַעֲבִיר בָּאֵשׁ. בַּעַל אוֹב זֶה פִתּוֹם הַמְדַבֵּר מִשֶּׁחְיוֹ, וְיִדְּעוֹנִי זֶה הַמְדַבֵּר בְּפִיו, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בִסְקִילָה, וְהַנִּשְׁאָל בָּהֶם בְּאַזְהָרָה: ",
+ "הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, בְּדָבָר שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת. הַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּקַלְּלֵם בַּשֵּׁם. קִלְּלָם בְּכִנּוּי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: ",
+ "הַבָּא עַל נַעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָסָה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה מְאֹרָסָה וְהִיא בְבֵית אָבִיהָ. בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁנַיִם, הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּסְקִילָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי בְּחֶנֶק: ",
+ "הַמֵּסִית, זֶה הֶדְיוֹט הַמֵּסִית אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹט. אָמַר לוֹ יֵשׁ יִרְאָה בְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, כָּךְ אוֹכֶלֶת, כָּךְ שׁוֹתָה, כָּךְ מֵטִיבָה, כָּךְ מְרֵעָה. כָּל חַיָּבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין מַכְמִינִין עֲלֵיהֶם, חוּץ מִזּוֹ. אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם וְהֵן עֵדָיו, מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר לְאֶחָד, הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי חֲבֵרִים רוֹצִים בְּכָךְ. אִם הָיָה עָרוּם וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְדַבֵּר בִּפְנֵיהֶם, מַכְמִינִין לוֹ עֵדִים אֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתָּ לִּי בְיִחוּד, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לוֹ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ הֵיאַךְ נַנִּיחַ אֶת אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם וְנֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים. אִם חוֹזֵר בּוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה מוּטָב. וְאִם אָמַר כָּךְ הִיא חוֹבָתֵנוּ וְכָךְ יָפֶה לָנוּ, הָעוֹמְדִין מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר אֶעֱבֹד, אֵלֵךְ וְאֶעֱבֹד, נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד. אֲזַבֵּחַ, אֵלֵךְ וַאֲזַבֵּחַ, נֵלֵךְ וּנְזַבֵּחַ. אַקְטִיר, אֵלֵךְ וְאַקְטִיר, נֵלֵךְ וְנַקְטִיר. אֲנַסֵּךְ, אֵלֵךְ וַאֲנַסֵּךְ, נֵלֵךְ וּנְנַסֵּךְ. אֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה, אֵלֵךְ וְאֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה, נֵלֵךְ וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה. הַמַּדִּיחַ, זֶה הָאוֹמֵר, נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה: ",
+ "הַמְכַשֵּׁף הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּב, וְלֹא הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינָיִם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שְׁנַיִם לוֹקְטִין קִשּׁוּאִין, אֶחָד לוֹקֵט פָּטוּר וְאֶחָד לוֹקֵט חַיָּב, הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּב, הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם פָּטוּר: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, מֵאֵימָתַי נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת וְעַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף זָקָן, הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְלֹא הָעֶלְיוֹן, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא), כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן, בֵּן וְלֹא בַת, בֵּן וְלֹא אִישׁ. הַקָּטָן פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא בָא לִכְלָל מִצְוֹת: \n",
+ "מֵאֵימָתַי חַיָּב, מִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל טַרְטֵימַר בָּשָׂר וְיִשְׁתֶּה חֲצִי לֹג יַיִן הָאִיטַלְקִי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, מָנֶה בָּשָׂר וְלֹג יָיִן. אָכַל בַּחֲבוּרַת מִצְוָה, אָכַל בְּעִבּוּר הַחֹדֶשׁ, אָכַל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, אָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, אָכַל טֶבֶל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ, אָכַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִצְוָה וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא עֲבֵרָה, אָכַל כָּל מַאֲכָל וְלֹא אָכַל בָּשָׂר, שָׁתָה כָל מַשְׁקֶה וְלֹא שָׁתָה יַיִן, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר וְיִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי כג) אַל תְּהִי בְסֹבְאֵי יָיִן בְּזֹלְלֵי בָשָׂר לָמוֹ: \n",
+ "גָּנַב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיו, מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אֲחֵרִים, מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיו, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, עַד שֶׁיִּגְנֹב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וְיֹאכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אֲחֵרִים. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיִּגְנֹב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וּמִשֶּׁל אִמּוֹ: \n",
+ "הָיָה אָבִיו רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ אֵינָהּ רוֹצָה, אָבִיו אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ רוֹצָה, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם לֹא הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לְאָבִיו, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם גִּדֵּם אוֹ חִגֵּר אוֹ אִלֵּם אוֹ סוּמָא אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְלֹא גִדְּמִין. וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ, וְלֹא חִגְּרִין. וְאָמְרוּ, וְלֹא אִלְּמִין. בְּנֵנוּ זֶה, וְלֹא סוּמִין. אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ, וְלֹא חֵרְשִׁין. מַתְרִין בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ. חָזַר וְקִלְקֵל, נִדּוֹן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְאֵינוֹ נִסְקָל עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) בְּנֵנוּ זֶה, זֶהוּ שֶׁלָּקָה בִּפְנֵיכֶם. בָּרַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, פָּטוּר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בָּרַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, חַיָּב: \n",
+ "בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה נִדּוֹן עַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ, יָמוּת זַכַּאי וְאַל יָמוּת חַיָּב, שֶׁמִּיתָתָן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. יַיִן וְשֵׁנָה לָרְשָׁעִים, הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. פִּזּוּר לָרְשָׁעִים, הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. כִּנּוּס לָרְשָׁעִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים, הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם. שֶׁקֶט לָרְשָׁעִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים, הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם: \n",
+ "הַבָּא בַמַּחְתֶּרֶת נִדּוֹן עַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ. הָיָה בָא בַמַּחְתֶּרֶת וְשָׁבַר אֶת הֶחָבִית, אִם יֶשׁ לוֹ דָמִים, חַיָּב. אִם אֵין לוֹ דָמִים, פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן שֶׁמַּצִּילִין אוֹתָן בְּנַפְשָׁן, הָרוֹדֵף אַחַר חֲבֵרוֹ לְהָרְגוֹ, אַחַר הַזְּכוּר וְאַחַר הַנַּעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָסָה. אֲבָל הָרוֹדֵף אַחַר בְּהֵמָה, וְהַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֵין מַצִּילִין אוֹתָן בְּנַפְשָׁן: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין, הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, וּבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנְּתָה. יֵשׁ בִּכְלָל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, בִּתּוֹ, וּבַת בִּתּוֹ, וּבַת בְּנוֹ, וּבַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וּבַת בִּתָּהּ, וּבַת בְּנָהּ, חֲמוֹתוֹ, וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ, וְאֵם חָמִיו. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנֶּהֱרָגִים, הָרוֹצֵחַ וְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדָּחַת. רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁהִכָּה אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בְאֶבֶן אוֹ בְבַרְזֶל, וְכָבַשׁ עָלָיו לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הָאוּר וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת מִשָּׁם, וָמֵת, חַיָּב. דְּחָפוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הָאוּר וְיָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת מִשָּׁם, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. שִׁסָּה בוֹ אֶת הַכֶּלֶב, שִׁסָּה בוֹ אֶת הַנָּחָשׁ, פָּטוּר. הִשִּׁיךְ בּוֹ אֶת הַנָּחָשׁ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. הַמַּכֶּה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין בְּאֶבֶן בֵּין בְּאֶגְרוֹף וַאֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה, וְהֵקֵל מִמַּה שֶּׁהָיָה וּלְאַחַר מִכָּאן הִכְבִּיד וָמֵת, חַיָּב. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, פָּטוּר, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר: \n",
+ "נִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם, לַנָּכְרִי וְהָרַג אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לִנְפָלִים, וְהָרַג בֶּן קְיָמָא, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל מָתְנָיו וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית הַגָּדוֹל וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. אֲבָל נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ, וָמֵת, חַיָּב. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן, וָמֵת, חַיָּב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה, פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים, כֻּלָּן פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתָן לְכִפָּה. כָּל חַיָּבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה, נִדּוֹנִין בַּקַּלָּה. הַנִּסְקָלִין בַּנִּשְׂרָפִין, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, נִדּוֹנִין בִּסְקִילָה, שֶׁהַשְּׂרֵפָה חֲמוּרָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, נִדּוֹנִין בִּשְׂרֵפָה, שֶׁהַסְּקִילָה חֲמוּרָה. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אִלּוּ לֹא הָיְתָה שְׂרֵפָה חֲמוּרָה, לֹא נִתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנְּתָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִלּוּ לֹא הָיְתָה סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, לֹא נִתְּנָה לַמְגַדֵּף וְלָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הַנֶּהֱרָגִין בַּנֶּחֱנָקִין, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, בְּסַיִף. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בְּחֶנֶק: \n",
+ "מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בִּשְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, נִדּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה. עָבַר עֲבֵרָה שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת, נִדּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, נִדּוֹן בַּזִקָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁבָּאָה עָלָיו: \n",
+ "מִי שֶׁלָּקָה וְשָׁנָה, בֵּית דִּין מַכְנִיסִים אוֹתוֹ לְכִפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעֹרִין עַד שֶׁכְּרֵסוֹ מִתְבַּקָּעַת. הַהוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים, מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ לְכִפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לֶחֶם צַר וּמַיִם לָחַץ: \n",
+ "הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת הַקַּסְוָה וְהַמְקַלֵּל בַּקּוֹסֵם וְהַבּוֹעֵל אֲרַמִּית, קַנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. כֹּהֵן שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ בְּטֻמְאָה, אֵין אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין, אֶלָּא פִרְחֵי כְהֻנָּה מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה וּמַפְצִיעִין אֶת מֹחוֹ בִּגְזִירִין. זָר שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, בְּחֶנֶק. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בִּידֵי שָׁמָיִם: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ס) וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם, וְאֶפִּיקוֹרֶס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹרֵא בַסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר (שמות טו) כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה' רֹפְאֶךָ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו: \n",
+ "שְׁלֹשָׁה מְלָכִים וְאַרְבָּעָה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. שְׁלֹשָׁה מְלָכִים, יָרָבְעָם, אַחְאָב, וּמְנַשֶּׁה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְנַשֶּׁה יֶשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברי הימים ב לג) וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אֵלָיו וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ וַיִּשְׁמַע תְּחִנָּתוֹ וַיְשִׁיבֵהוּ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לְמַלְכוּתוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לְמַלְכוּתוֹ הֱשִׁיבוֹ וְלֹא לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא הֱשִׁיבוֹ. אַרְבָּעָה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, בִּלְעָם, וְדוֹאֵג, וַאֲחִיתֹפֶל, וְגֵחֲזִי: \n",
+ "דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא וְאֵין עוֹמְדִין בַּדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ו) לֹא יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם, לֹא דִין וְלֹא רוּחַ. דּוֹר הַפַּלָּגָה אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית יא) וַיָּפֶץ ה' אֹתָם מִשָּׁם עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ. וַיָּפֶץ ה' אֹתָם, בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. וּמִשָּׁם הֱפִיצָם ה', לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. אַנְשֵׁי סְדוֹם אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יג) וְאַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם רָעִים וְחַטָּאִים לַה' מְאֹד. רָעִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. וְחַטָּאִים, לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. אֲבָל עוֹמְדִין בַּדִּין. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ אֵין עוֹמְדִין בַּדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים א) עַל כֵּן לֹא יָקֻמוּ רְשָׁעִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט וְחַטָּאִים בַּעֲדַת צַדִּיקִים. עַל כֵּן לֹא יָקֻמוּ רְשָׁעִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט, זֶה דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל. וְחַטָּאִים בַּעֲדַת צַדִּיקִים, אֵלּוּ אַנְשֵׁי סְדוֹם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵינָם עוֹמְדִים בַּעֲדַת צַדִּיקִים אֲבָל עוֹמְדִין בַּעֲדַת רְשָׁעִים. מְרַגְּלִים אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיָּמֻתוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים מוֹצִאֵי דִבַּת הָאָרֶץ רָעָה בַּמַּגֵּפָה לִפְנֵי ה' (במדבר יד). וַיָּמֻתוּ, בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. בַּמַּגֵּפָה, בָּעוֹלָם הַבָּא. דּוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא וְאֵין עוֹמְדִין בַּדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) בַּמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה יִתַּמּוּ וְשָׁם יָמֻתוּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, עֲלֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהלים נ) אִסְפוּ לִי חֲסִידָי כֹּרְתֵי בְרִיתִי עֲלֵי זָבַח. עֲדַת קֹרַח אֵינָהּ עֲתִידָה לַעֲלוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טז) וַתְּכַס עֲלֵיהֶם הָאָרֶץ, בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וַיֹּאבְדוּ מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל, לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, עֲלֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר (שמואל א ב) ה' מֵמִית וּמְחַיֶּה מוֹרִיד שְׁאוֹל וַיָּעַל. עֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים אֵינָן עֲתִידִין לַחֲזֹר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כט) וַיַּשְׁלִכֵם אֶל אֶרֶץ אַחֶרֶת כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה, מַה הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה הוֹלֵךְ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר, אַף הֵם הוֹלְכִים וְאֵינָם חוֹזְרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה, מַה הַיּוֹם מַאֲפִיל וּמֵאִיר, אַף עֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים שֶׁאָפַל לָהֶן, כָּךְ עָתִיד לְהָאִיר לָהֶן: \n",
+ "אַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת אֵין לָהֶן חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יג) יָצְאוּ אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי בְלִיַּעַל מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וַיַּדִּיחוּ אֶת ישְׁבֵי עִירָם. וְאֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִים עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ מֵאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר וּמֵאוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט, וְעַד שֶׁיֻּדַּח רֻבָּהּ, וְעַד שֶׁיַּדִּיחוּם אֲנָשִׁים. הִדִּיחוּהָ נָשִׁים וּקְטַנִּים אוֹ שֶׁהֻדַּח מִעוּטָהּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ חוּצָה לָהּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִיחִידִים. וּצְרִיכִין שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּיְּחִידִים מִבַּמְּרֻבִּים, שֶׁהַיְּחִידִים בִּסְקִילָה, לְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָם פָּלֵט. וְהַמְּרֻבִּים בְּסַיִף, לְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד: \n",
+ "הַכֵּה תַכֶּה אֶת וְגוֹ' (דברים יג). הַחַמֶּרֶת וְהַגַּמֶּלֶת הָעוֹבֶרֶת מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מַצִּילִין אוֹתָהּ. הַחֲרֵם אֹתָהּ וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ וְאֶת בְּהֶמְתָּהּ לְפִי חָרֶב (שם), מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ נִכְסֵי צַדִּיקִים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ אוֹבְדִין, שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָהּ פְּלֵטִין. וְשֶׁל רְשָׁעִים, בֵּין שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ בֵּין שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָהּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹבְדִין: \n",
+ "וְאֶת כָּל שְׁלָלָהּ תִּקְבֹּץ אֶל תּוֹךְ רְחֹבָהּ וְגוֹ' (דברים יג). אִם אֵין לָהּ רְחוֹב, עוֹשִׂין לָהּ רְחוֹב. הָיָה רְחוֹבָהּ חוּצָה לָהּ, כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ. וְשָׂרַפְתָּ בָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעִיר וְאֶת כָּל שְׁלָלָהּ כָּלִיל לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ (שם). שְׁלָלָהּ, וְלֹא שְׁלַל שָׁמָיִם. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ, הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שֶׁבָּהּ יִפָּדוּ, וּתְרוּמוֹת יֵרָקְבוּ, מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכִתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ יִגָּנֵזוּ. כָּלִיל לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אִם אַתֶּם עוֹשִׂים דִּין בְּעִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּאִלּוּ אַתֶּם מַעֲלִין עוֹלָה כָלִיל לְפָנָי. וְהָיְתָה תֵּל עוֹלָם לֹא תִבָּנֶה עוֹד (דברים יג), לֹא תֵעָשֶׂה אֲפִלּוּ גַנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּסִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, לֹא תִבָּנֶה עוֹד, לִכְמוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה אֵינָהּ נִבְנֵית, אֲבָל נַעֲשֵׂית הִיא גַּנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּסִים. וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם (שם), שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם, חֲרוֹן אַף בָּעוֹלָם. אָבְדוּ רְשָׁעִים מִן הָעוֹלָם, נִסְתַּלֵּק חֲרוֹן אַף מִן הָעוֹלָם: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַנֶּחֱנָקִין, הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְגוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְזָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, וּנְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר, וְהַמִּתְנַבֵּא בְּשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְזוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ. הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בָהֶן חַבּוּרָה. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּמְקַלֵּל מִבַּמַּכֶּה, שֶׁהַמְקַלֵּל לְאַחַר מִיתָה חַיָּב, וְהַמַּכֶּה לְאַחַר מִיתָה פָּטוּר. הַגּוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד) וְהִתְעַמֶּר בּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ. הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת בְּנוֹ, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. גָּנַב מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: \n",
+ "זָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יז) כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט וְגוֹ'. שְׁלֹשָׁה בָתֵּי דִינִין הָיוּ שָׁם, אֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב עַל פֶּתַח הַר הַבַּיִת, וְאֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב עַל פֶּתַח הָעֲזָרָה, וְאֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית. בָּאִים לָזֶה שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח הַר הַבַּיִת, וְאוֹמֵר, כָּךְ דָּרַשְׁתִּי וְכָךְ דָּרְשׁוּ חֲבֵרָי, כָּךְ לִמַּדְתִּי וְכָךְ לִמְּדוּ חֲבֵרָי. אִם שָׁמְעוּ, אוֹמְרִים לָהֶם. וְאִם לָאו, בָּאִין לָהֶם לְאוֹתָן שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח הָעֲזָרָה, וְאוֹמֵר, כָּךְ דָּרַשְׁתִּי וְכָךְ דָּרְשׁוּ חֲבֵרָי, כָּךְ לִמַּדְתִּי וְכָךְ לִמְּדוּ חֲבֵרָי. אִם שָׁמְעוּ, אוֹמְרִים לָהֶם. וְאִם לָאו, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ בָּאִים לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית, שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ יוֹצֵאת תּוֹרָה לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה'. חָזַר לְעִירוֹ וְשָׁנָה וְלִמֵּד כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לָמֵד, פָּטוּר. וְאִם הוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת, חַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיּוֹרֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת. תַּלְמִיד שֶׁהוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת, פָּטוּר, נִמְצָא חֻמְרוֹ קֻלּוֹ: \n",
+ "חֹמֶר בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מִבְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּפִלִּין, כְּדֵי לַעֲבֹר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, פָּטוּר. חֲמִשָּׁה טוֹטָפוֹת, לְהוֹסִיף עַל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, חַיָּב: \n",
+ "אֵין מְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ לֹא בְבֵית דִּין שֶׁבְּעִירוֹ וְלֹא בְבֵית דִּין שֶׁבְּיַבְנֶה, אֶלָּא מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וּמְשַׁמְּרִין אוֹתוֹ עַד הָרֶגֶל וּמְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ בָרֶגֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) וְכָל הָעָם יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ וְלֹא יְזִידוּן עוֹד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵין מְעַנִּין אֶת דִּינוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, אֶלָּא מְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד, וְכוֹתְבִין וְשׁוֹלְחִין שְׁלוּחִים בְּכָל הַמְּקוֹמוֹת, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נִתְחַיֵּב מִיתָה בְּבֵית דִּין: \n",
+ "נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר הַמִּתְנַבֵּא עַל מַה שֶּׁלֹּא שָׁמַע וּמַה שֶּׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר לוֹ, מִיתָתוֹ בִידֵי אָדָם. אֲבָל הַכּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת נְבוּאָתוֹ, וְהַמְוַתֵּר עַל דִּבְרֵי נָבִיא, וְנָבִיא שֶׁעָבַר עַל דִּבְרֵי עַצְמוֹ, מִיתָתוֹ בִידֵי שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יח) אָנֹכִי אֶדְרשׁ מֵעִמּוֹ: \n",
+ "הַמִּתְנַבֵּא בְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְאוֹמֵר, כָּךְ אָמְרָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֲפִלּוּ כִוֵּן אֶת הַהֲלָכָה, לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַטָּמֵא וּלְטַהֵר אֶת הַטָּהוֹר. הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל לַנִּשּׂוּאִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה, הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי זֶה בְחֶנֶק. וְזוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ, שֶׁכָּל הַזּוֹמְמִין מַקְדִּימִין לְאוֹתָהּ מִיתָה, חוּץ מִזּוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ: \n"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/Hebrew/merged.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..114c52780f87abab4925bad3b799b6e545a900a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Sanhedrin/Hebrew/merged.json
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+{
+ "title": "Mishnah Sanhedrin",
+ "language": "he",
+ "versionTitle": "merged",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedrin",
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. גְּזֵלוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. נֶזֶק וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וְהַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ דִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת: \n",
+ "מַכּוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. עִבּוּר הַחֹדֶשׁ, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. עִבּוּר הַשָּׁנָה, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מַתְחִילִין, וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין, וְגוֹמְרִין בְּשִׁבְעָה. וְאִם גָּמְרוּ בִשְׁלֹשָׁה, מְעֻבֶּרֶת: \n",
+ "סְמִיכַת זְקֵנִים וַעֲרִיפַת עֶגְלָה, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה. הַחֲלִיצָה וְהַמֵּאוּנִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. נֶטַע רְבָעִי וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין דָּמָיו יְדוּעִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הָעֲרָכִין הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד מֵהֶן כֹּהֵן. וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת, תִּשְׁעָה וְכֹהֵן. וְאָדָם, כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן: \n",
+ "דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא כ) וְהָרַגְתָּ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְאוֹמֵר (שם) וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה תַּהֲרֹגוּ. שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת, כְּמִיתַת בְּעָלִים כָּךְ מִיתַת הַשּׁוֹר. הַזְּאֵב וְהָאֲרִי, הַדֹּב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס וְהַנָּחָשׁ, מִיתָתָן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם לְהָרְגָן, זָכָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מִיתָתָן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה: \n",
+ "אֵין דָּנִין לֹא אֶת הַשֵּׁבֶט וְלֹא אֶת נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר וְלֹא אֶת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין עוֹשִׂין סַנְהֶדְרִיּוֹת לַשְּׁבָטִים, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בַּסְּפָר, וְלֹא שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתָּיִם: \n",
+ "סַנְהֶדְרִי גְדוֹלָה הָיְתָה שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, וּקְטַנָּה שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וּמִנַּיִן לַגְּדוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יא) אֶסְפָה לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמֹשֶׁה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן, הֲרֵי שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שִׁבְעִים. וּמִנַּיִן לַקְּטַנָּה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם לה) וְשָׁפְטוּ הָעֵדָה וְגוֹ' וְהִצִּילוּ הָעֵדָה, עֵדָה שׁוֹפֶטֶת וְעֵדָה מַצֶּלֶת, הֲרֵי כָאן עֶשְׂרִים. וּמִנַּיִן לָעֵדָה שֶׁהִיא עֲשָׂרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יד) עַד מָתַי לָעֵדָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת, יָצְאוּ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב. וּמִנַּיִן לְהָבִיא עוֹד שְׁלֹשָׁה, מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג) לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְרָעֹת, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁאֶהְיֶה עִמָּהֶם לְטוֹבָה, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (שם) אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת, לֹא כְהַטָּיָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה הַטָּיָתְךָ לְרָעָה. הַטָּיָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה עַל פִּי אֶחָד, הַטָּיָתְךָ לְרָעָה עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁקוּל, מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶם עוֹד אֶחָד, הֲרֵי כָאן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְכַמָּה יְהֵא בְעִיר וּתְהֵא רְאוּיָה לְסַנְהֶדְרִין, מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, מָאתַיִם וּשְׁלשִׁים, כְּנֶגֶד שָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרוֹת: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל דָּן וְדָנִין אוֹתוֹ, מֵעִיד וּמְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ, חוֹלֵץ וְחוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וּמְיַבְּמִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲבָל הוּא אֵינוֹ מְיַבֵּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בָּאַלְמָנָה. מֵת לוֹ מֵת, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא אַחַר הַמִּטָּה, אֶלָּא הֵן נִכְסִין וְהוּא נִגְלֶה, הֵן נִגְלִין וְהוּא נִכְסֶה, וְיוֹצֵא עִמָּהֶן עַד פֶּתַח הָעִיר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא) וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מְנַחֵם אֲחֵרִים, דֶּרֶךְ כָּל הָעָם עוֹבְרִין בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה וְהַמְמֻנֶּה מְמַצְּעוֹ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הָעָם. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מִתְנַחֵם מֵאֲחֵרִים, כָּל הָעָם אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אָנוּ כַפָּרָתְךָ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶן תִּתְבָּרְכוּ מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם. וּכְשֶׁמַּבְרִין אוֹתוֹ, כָּל הָעָם מְסֻבִּין עַל הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא מֵסֵב עַל הַסַּפְסָל: \n",
+ "הַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא דָן וְלֹא דָנִין אוֹתוֹ, לֹא מֵעִיד וְלֹא מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ, לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא חוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. לֹא מְיַבֵּם וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם רָצָה לַחֲלֹץ אוֹ לְיַבֵּם, זָכוּר לָטוֹב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וְאֵין נוֹשְׂאִין אַלְמָנָתוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, נוֹשֵׂא הַמֶּלֶךְ אַלְמָנָתוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְדָוִד שֶׁנָּשָׂא אַלְמָנָתוֹ שֶׁל שָׁאוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל ב יב) וָאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת בֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ וְאֶת נְשֵׁי אֲדֹנֶיךָ בְּחֵיקֶךָ: \n",
+ "מֵת לוֹ מֵת, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִפֶּתַח פַּלְטְרִין שֶׁלּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם רוֹצֶה לָצֵאת אַחַר הַמִּטָּה, יוֹצֵא, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְדָוִד שֶׁיָּצָא אַחַר מִטָּתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְנֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם ג) וְהַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד הֹלֵךְ אַחֲרֵי הַמִּטָּה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא הָיָה הַדָּבָר אֶלָּא לְפַיֵּס אֶת הָעָם. וּכְשֶׁמַּבְרִין אוֹתוֹ, כָּל הָעָם מְסֻבִּין עַל הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא מֵסֵב עַל הַדַּרְגָּשׁ: \n",
+ "וּמוֹצִיא לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. וּפוֹרֵץ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דֶרֶךְ, וְאֵין מְמַחִין בְּיָדוֹ. דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין לוֹ שִׁעוּר. וְכָל הָעָם בּוֹזְזִין וְנוֹתְנִין לְפָנָיו, וְהוּא נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ. לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ נָשִׁים (דברים יז), אֶלָּא שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מַרְבֶּה הוּא לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מְסִירוֹת אֶת לִבּוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ אַחַת וּמְסִירָה אֶת לִבּוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂאֶנָּה. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (דברים יז) וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ נָשִׁים, אֲפִלּוּ כַאֲבִיגָיִל. לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ סוּסִים (שם), אֶלָּא כְדֵי מֶרְכַּבְתּוֹ. וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ מְאֹד (שם), אֶלָּא כְדֵי לִתֵּן אַפְסַנְיָא. וְכוֹתֵב לוֹ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה לִשְׁמוֹ. יוֹצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה, מוֹצִיאָהּ עִמּוֹ. נִכְנָס, מַכְנִיסָהּ עִמּוֹ. יוֹשֵׁב בַּדִּין, הִיא עִמּוֹ. מֵסֵב, הִיא כְנֶגְדּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וְהָיְתָה עִמּוֹ וְקָרָא בוֹ כָּל יְמֵי חַיָּיו: \n",
+ "אֵין רוֹכְבִין עַל סוּסוֹ, וְאֵין יוֹשְׁבִין עַל כִּסְאוֹ, וְאֵין מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּשַׁרְבִיטוֹ, וְאֵין רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא מִסְתַּפֵּר וְלֹא כְשֶׁהוּא עָרֹם וְלֹא בְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ, שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. זֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד וְזֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד, וּשְׁנֵיהֶן בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שְׁנֵי דַיָּנִין בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד. זֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמֵּבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִין אוֹ פְסוּלִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים אוֹ מֻמְחִין, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן. זֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִים אוֹ פְסוּלִים. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן: \n",
+ "אָמַר לוֹ נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אַבָּא, נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אָבִיךָ, נֶאֱמָנִין עָלַי שְׁלֹשָׁה רוֹעֵי בָקָר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ. הָיָה חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁבוּעָה וְאָמַר לוֹ דּוֹר לִי בְחַיֵּי רֹאשְׁךָ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ: \n",
+ "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִין, הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקֻבְיָא, וְהַמַּלְוֶה בְרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בִּתְחִלָּה הָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתָן אוֹסְפֵי שְׁבִיעִית, מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָאַנָּסִין, חָזְרוּ לִקְרוֹתָן סוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אֻמָּנוּת אֶלָּא הִיא, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהֶן אֻמָּנוּת שֶׁלֹּא הִיא, כְּשֵׁרִין: \n",
+ "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַקְּרוֹבִין, אָבִיו וְאָחִיו וַאֲחִי אָבִיו וַאֲחִי אִמּוֹ וּבַעַל אֲחוֹתוֹ וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו וּבַעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וּבַעַל אִמּוֹ וְחָמִיו וְגִיסוֹ, הֵן וּבְנֵיהֶן וְחַתְנֵיהֶן, וְחוֹרְגוֹ לְבַדּוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, זוֹ מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אֲבָל מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, דּוֹדוֹ וּבֶן דּוֹדוֹ. וְכָל הָרָאוּי לְיָרְשׁוֹ, וְכָל הַקָּרוֹב לוֹ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. הָיָה קָרוֹב וְנִתְרַחֵק, הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מֵתָה בִתּוֹ וְיֶשׁ לוֹ בָנִים מִמֶּנָּה, הֲרֵי זֶה קָרוֹב: \n",
+ "הָאוֹהֵב וְהַשּׂוֹנֵא. אוֹהֵב, זֶה שׁוּשְׁבִינוֹ. שׂוֹנֵא, כָּל שֶׁלֹּא דִבֶּר עִמּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בְּאֵיבָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל כָּךְ: \n",
+ "כֵּיצַד בּוֹדְקִים אֶת הָעֵדִים, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לַחוּץ, וּמְשַׁיְּרִין אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר הֵיאַךְ אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּב לָזֶה. אִם אָמַר, הוּא אָמַר לִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אָמַר לִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר, בְּפָנֵינוּ הוֹדָה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִים אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִים, נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בַּדָּבָר. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים זַכַּאי, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חַיָּב, זַכַּאי. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים חַיָּב, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי, חַיָּב. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חַיָּב, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ שְׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, יוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּנִין: \n",
+ "גָּמְרוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן. הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּדַּיָּנִים אוֹמֵר, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אַתָּה זַכַּאי, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אַתָּה חַיָּב. וּמִנַּיִן לִכְשֶׁיֵּצֵא אֶחָד מִן הַדַּיָּנִים לֹא יֹאמַר אֲנִי מְזַכֶּה וַחֲבֵרַי מְחַיְּבִין אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה שֶׁחֲבֵרַי רַבּוּ עָלָי, עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּךָ (ויקרא יט), וְאוֹמֵר הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל מְגַלֶּה סּוֹד (משלי יא): \n",
+ "כָּל זְמַן שֶׁמֵּבִיא רְאָיָה, סוֹתֵר אֶת הַדִּין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, כָּל רְאָיוֹת שֶׁיֶּשׁ לְךָ הָבֵא מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. מָצָא בְתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, סוֹתֵר. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא מָצָא בְתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמָצָא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ הָבֵא עֵדִים וְאָמַר אֵין לִי עֵדִים, אָמְרוּ הָבֵא רְאָיָה וְאָמַר אֵין לִי רְאָיָה, וּלְאַחַר זְמָן הֵבִיא רְאָיָה וּמָצָא עֵדִים, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ כְלוּם. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים וּמָצָא עֵדִים, לֹא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ רְאָיָה וּמָצָא רְאָיָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ הָבֵא עֵדִים, אָמַר אֵין לִי עֵדִים, הָבֵא רְאָיָה וְאָמַר אֵין לִי רְאָיָה, רָאָה שֶׁמִּתְחַיֵּב בַּדִּין וְאָמַר קִרְבוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וְהַעִידוּנִי, אוֹ שֶׁהוֹצִיא רְאָיָה מִתּוֹךְ אֲפֻנְדָּתוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ כְלוּם: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. מַה בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת פּוֹתְחִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת פּוֹתְחִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד לִזְכוּת וְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחֲזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַחֲזִירִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְאֵין הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת וְהַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת מְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּיּוֹם. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם לִזְכוּת וּבְיוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו לְחוֹבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין לֹא בְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב: \n",
+ "דִּינֵי הַטֻּמְאוֹת וְהַטָּהֳרוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַצָּד. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֵין הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, אֶלָּא כֹהֲנִים, לְוִיִּם, וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים הַמַּשִּׂיאִין לַכְּהֻנָּה: \n",
+ "סַנְהֶדְרִין הָיְתָה כַּחֲצִי גֹרֶן עֲגֻלָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ רוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וּשְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין עוֹמְדִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, אֶחָד מִיָּמִין וְאֶחָד מִשְּׂמֹאל, וְכוֹתְבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין, וְאֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי כוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין: \n",
+ "וְשָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים יוֹשְׁבִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מַכִּיר אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. הָיוּ צְרִיכִין לִסְמֹךְ, סוֹמְכִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנִיָּה בָּא לוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּא לוֹ לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּבוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד מִן הַקָּהָל וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בַשְּׁלִישִׁית. וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לוֹ: \n",
+ "כֵּיצַד מְאַיְּמִין אֶת הָעֵדִים עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן. שֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מֵאֹמֶד, וּמִשְּׁמוּעָה, עֵד מִפִּי עֵד וּמִפִּי אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שָׁמַעְנוּ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אִי אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לִבְדֹּק אֶתְכֶם בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה. הֱווּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁלֹּא כְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, אָדָם נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְקַיִן שֶׁהָרַג אֶת אָחִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ד) דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים, אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר דַּם אָחִיךָ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר, דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, שֶׁהָיָה דָמוֹ מֻשְׁלָךְ עַל הָעֵצִים וְעַל הָאֲבָנִים. לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי, לְלַמֶּדְךָ, שֶׁכָּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ אִבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וְכָל הַמְקַיֵּם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ קִיֵּם עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ אַבָּא גָדוֹל מֵאָבִיךָ. וְשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִינִין אוֹמְרִים, הַרְבֵּה רָשֻׁיּוֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם. וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדֻלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְכֻלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כָּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּב לוֹמַר, בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ה) וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְגוֹ'. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ לָחוּב בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (משלי יא) וּבַאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "הָיוּ בוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת, בְּאֵיזֶה שָׁבוּעַ, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁנָה, בְּאֵיזֶה חֹדֶשׁ, בְּכַמָּה בַחֹדֶשׁ, בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁעָה, בְּאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁעָה, בְּאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם. מַכִּירִין אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ. הִתְרֵיתֶם בּוֹ. הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֶת מִי עָבַד, וּבַמֶּה עָבָד: \n",
+ "כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִבְדִיקוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח. מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָדַק בֶּן זַכַּאי בְּעֻקְצֵי תְאֵנִים. וּמַה בֵּין חֲקִירוֹת לִבְדִיקוֹת. חֲקִירוֹת, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. בְּדִיקוֹת, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין, עֵדוּתָן קַיָּמֶת. אֶחָד חֲקִירוֹת וְאֶחָד בְּדִיקוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה: \n",
+ "אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁנַיִם בַּחֹדֶשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה בַחֹדֶשׁ, עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת, שֶׁזֶּה יוֹדֵעַ בְּעִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל חֹדֶשׁ וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּעִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל חֹדֶשׁ. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בַּחֲמִשָּׁה, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׁעוֹת וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁעוֹת, עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּשָׁלֹשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּחָמֵשׁ, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, קַיָּמֶת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּחָמֵשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּשֶׁבַע, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, שֶׁבְּחָמֵשׁ חַמָּה בַמִּזְרָח וּבְשֶׁבַע חַמָּה בַמַּעֲרָב: \n",
+ "וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִין, פּוֹתְחִין בִּזְכוּת. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו חוֹבָה, מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בֵינֵיהֶן, וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד מִשָּׁם כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ. אִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו: \n",
+ "אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ. וְאִם לָאו, מַעֲבִירִין דִּינוֹ לְמָחָר. הָיוּ מִזְדַּוְּגִין זוּגוֹת זוּגוֹת, וּמְמַעֲטִין בְּמַאֲכָל, וְלֹא הָיוּ שׁוֹתִין יַיִן כָּל הַיּוֹם, וְנוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְלַמָּחֳרָת מַשְׁכִּימִין וּבָאִין לְבֵית דִּין. הַמְזַכֶּה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְזַכֶּה וּמְזַכֶּה אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי, וְהַמְחַיֵּב אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְחַיֵּב וּמְחַיֵּב אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי. הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. טָעוּ בְדָּבָר, שְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן. אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ. וְאִם לָאו, עוֹמְדִים לְמִנְיָן. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין, זַכַּאי. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין, וַאֲפִלּוּ אַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, וַאֲפִלּוּ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, יוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּנִין. עַד כַּמָּה מוֹסִיפִין, שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם עַד שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְזַכִּין וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְחַיְּבִין, זַכַּאי. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְחַיְּבִין וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְזַכִּין, דָּנִין אֵלּוּ כְּנֶגֶד אֵלּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אֶחָד מִן הַמְחַיְּבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "נִגְמַר הַדִּין, מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְסָקְלוֹ. בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל. אֶחָד עוֹמֵד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין וְהַסּוּדָרִין בְּיָדוֹ, וְאָדָם אֶחָד רוֹכֵב הַסּוּס רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא רוֹאֵהוּ. אוֹמֵר אֶחָד יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, הַלָּה מֵנִיף בַּסּוּדָרִין וְהַסּוּס רָץ וּמַעֲמִידוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת, מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו. מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ, וְאִם לָאו, יוֹצֵא לִסָּקֵל. וְכָרוֹז יוֹצֵא לְפָנָיו, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי יוֹצֵא לִסָּקֵל עַל שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה פְלוֹנִית, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו, כָּל מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לוֹ זְכוּת יָבֹא וִילַמֵּד עָלָיו: \n",
+ "הָיָה רָחוֹק מִבֵּית הַסְּקִילָה כְּעֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ הִתְוַדֵּה, שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ הַמּוּמָתִין מִתְוַדִּין, שֶׁכָּל הַמִּתְוַדֶּה יֶשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְעָכָן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, בְּנִי שִׂים נָא כָבוֹד לַה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתֶן לוֹ תוֹדָה וְגוֹ' וַיַּעַן עָכָן אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וַיֹּאמַר אָמְנָה אָנֹכִי חָטָאתִי לַה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָזֹאת וְגוֹ' (יהושע ז). וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁכִּפֶּר לוֹ וִדּוּיוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מֶה עֲכַרְתָּנוּ יַעְכָּרְךָ ה' בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה. הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אַתָּה עָכוּר, וְאִי אַתָּה עָכוּר לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְהִתְוַדּוֹת, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ, אֱמֹר תְּהֵא מִיתָתִי כַפָּרָה עַל כָּל עֲוֹנוֹתָי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא מְזֻמָּם, אוֹמֵר תְּהֵא מִיתָתִי כַּפָּרָה עַל כָּל עֲוֹנוֹתַי חוּץ מֵעָוֹן זֶה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִם כֵּן, יְהוּ כָל אָדָם אוֹמְרִים כָּךְ כְּדֵי לְנַקּוֹת אֶת עַצְמָן: \n",
+ "הָיָה רָחוֹק מִבֵּית הַסְּקִילָה אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, מַפְשִׁיטִין אוֹתוֹ אֶת בְּגָדָיו. הָאִישׁ, מְכַסִּין אוֹתוֹ מִלְּפָנָיו. וְהָאִשָּׁה, מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּמֵאַחֲרֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הָאִישׁ נִסְקָל עָרֹם וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִסְקֶלֶת עֲרֻמָּה: \n",
+ "בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה גָבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי קוֹמוֹת. אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים דּוֹחֲפוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. נֶהְפַּךְ עַל לִבּוֹ, הוֹפְכוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, הַשֵּׁנִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, רְגִימָתוֹ בְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה. כָּל הַנִּסְקָלִין נִתְלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ נִתְלֶה אֶלָּא הַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הָאִישׁ תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי הָעָם, וְהָאִשָּׁה פָּנֶיהָ כְלַפֵּי הָעֵץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הָאִישׁ נִתְלֶה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִתְלֵית. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַהֲלֹא שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח תָּלָה נָשִׁים בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, שְׁמֹנִים נָשִׁים תָּלָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין שְׁנַיִם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. כֵּיצַד תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ, מְשַׁקְּעִין אֶת הַקּוֹרָה בָאָרֶץ וְהָעֵץ יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה, וּמַקִּיף שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַקּוֹרָה מֻטָּה עַל הַכֹּתֶל, וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַטַּבָּחִין עוֹשִׂין. וּמַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וְאִם לָן, עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ כִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ כִּי קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים תָּלוּי וְגוֹ'. כְּלוֹמַר, מִפְּנֵי מָה זֶה תָלוּי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּרַךְ אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְנִמְצָא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם מִתְחַלֵּל: \n",
+ "אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָדָם מִצְטַעֵר, שְׁכִינָה מַה הַלָּשׁוֹן אוֹמֶרֶת כִּבְיָכוֹל, קַלַּנִי מֵרֹאשִׁי, קַלַּנִי מִזְּרוֹעִי. אִם כֵּן הַמָּקוֹם מִצְטַעֵר עַל דָּמָם שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים שֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ, קַל וָחֹמֶר עַל דָּמָם שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים. וְלֹא זוֹ בִלְבַד, אֶלָּא כָּל הַמֵּלִין אֶת מֵתוֹ, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הֱלִינוֹ לִכְבוֹדוֹ לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִים, אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. וְלֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּקִבְרוֹת אֲבוֹתָיו, אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי בָתֵּי קְבָרוֹת הָיוּ מְתֻקָּנִין לְבֵית דִּין, אַחַת לַנֶּהֱרָגִין וְלַנֶּחֱנָקִין וְאַחַת לַנִּסְקָלִין וְלַנִּשְׂרָפִין: \n",
+ "נִתְעַכֵּל הַבָּשָׂר, מְלַקְּטִין אֶת הָעֲצָמוֹת וְקוֹבְרִין אוֹתָן בִּמְקוֹמָן. וְהַקְּרוֹבִים בָּאִים וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹם הַדַּיָּנִים וּבִשְׁלוֹם הָעֵדִים, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין בְּלִבֵּנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם כְּלוּם, שֶׁדִּין אֱמֶת דַּנְתֶּם. וְלֹא הָיוּ מִתְאַבְּלִין, אֲבָל אוֹנְנִין, שֶׁאֵין אֲנִינוּת אֶלָּא בַלֵּב: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת נִמְסְרוּ לְבֵית דִּין, סְקִילָה, שְׂרֵפָה, הֶרֶג, וָחֶנֶק. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׂרֵפָה, סְקִילָה, חֶנֶק, וָהֶרֶג. זוֹ מִצְוַת הַנִּסְקָלִין: ",
+ "מִצְוַת הַנִּשְׂרָפִין, הָיוּ מְשַׁקְּעִין אוֹתוֹ בַזֶּבֶל עַד אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו וְנוֹתְנִין סוּדָר קָשָׁה לְתוֹךְ הָרַכָּה וְכוֹרֵךְ עַל צַוָּארוֹ. זֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ עַד שֶׁפּוֹתֵחַ אֶת פִּיו, וּמַדְלִיק אֶת הַפְּתִילָה וְזוֹרְקָהּ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו וְיוֹרֶדֶת לְתוֹךְ מֵעָיו וְחוֹמֶרֶת אֶת בְּנֵי מֵעָיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף הוּא אִם מֵת בְּיָדָם לֹא הָיוּ מְקַיְּמִין בּוֹ מִצְוַת שְׂרֵפָה, אֶלָּא פוֹתְחִין אֶת פִּיו בִּצְבָת שֶׁלֹּא בְטוֹבָתוֹ וּמַדְלִיק אֶת הַפְּתִילָה וְזוֹרְקָהּ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו וְיוֹרֶדֶת לְתוֹךְ מֵעָיו וְחוֹמֶרֶת אֶת בְּנֵי מֵעָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן צָדוֹק, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבַת כֹּהֵן אַחַת שֶׁזִּנְּתָה, וְהִקִּיפוּהָ חֲבִילֵי זְמוֹרוֹת וּשְׂרָפוּהָ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בֵית דִּין שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה בָּקִי: ",
+ "מִצְוַת הַנֶּהֱרָגִים, הָיוּ מַתִּיזִין אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בְסַיִף כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמַּלְכוּת עוֹשָׂה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, נִוּוּל הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מַנִּיחִין אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ עַל הַסַּדָּן וְקוֹצֵץ בְּקוֹפִיץ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין מִיתָה מְנֻוֶּלֶת מִזּוֹ. מִצְוַת הַנֶּחֱנָקִין, הָיוּ מְשַׁקְּעִין אוֹתוֹ בַזֶּבֶל עַד אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו וְנוֹתְנִין סוּדָר קָשָׁה לְתוֹךְ הָרַכָּה וְכוֹרֵךְ עַל צַוָּארוֹ, זֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ, עַד שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ יוֹצְאָה: ",
+ "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּסְקָלִין, הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת הָאָב, וְעַל הַכַּלָּה, וְעַל הַזְּכוּר, וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהַמְגַדֵּף, וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ, וּבַעַל אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי, וְהַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְהַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְהַבָּא עַל נַעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָסָה, וְהַמֵּסִית, וְהַמַּדִּיחַ, וְהַמְכַשֵּׁף, וּבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵם וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם הָאֵם בִּלְבָד. הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אָב חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו, בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. הַבָּא עַל כַּלָּתוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם כַּלָּתוֹ וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי בְנוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת בְּנוֹ, בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. הַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, אִם אָדָם חָטָא, בְּהֵמָה מֶה חָטָאת, אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁבָּאת לָאָדָם תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדָהּ, לְפִיכָךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב תִּסָּקֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא בְּהֵמָה עוֹבֶרֶת בַּשּׁוּק וְיֹאמְרוּ זוֹ הִיא שֶׁנִּסְקַל פְּלוֹנִי עַל יָדָהּ: ",
+ "הַמְגַדֵּף אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ הַשֵּׁם. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה, בְּכָל יוֹם דָּנִין אֶת הָעֵדִים בְּכִנּוּי יַכֶּה יוֹסֵי אֶת יוֹסֵי. נִגְמַר הַדִּין, לֹא הוֹרְגִים בְּכִנּוּי, אֶלָּא מוֹצִיאִים כָּל אָדָם לַחוּץ וְשׁוֹאֲלִים אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁשָּׁמַעְתָּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר, וְהַדַּיָּנִים עוֹמְדִין עַל רַגְלֵיהֶן וְקוֹרְעִין וְלֹא מְאַחִין. וְהַשֵּׁנִי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ: ",
+ "הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֶחָד הָעוֹבֵד, וְאֶחָד הַזּוֹבֵחַ, וְאֶחָד הַמְקַטֵּר, וְאֶחָד הַמְנַסֵּךְ, וְאֶחָד הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה, וְאֶחָד הַמְקַבְּלוֹ עָלָיו לֶאֱלוֹהַּ, וְהָאוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵלִי אָתָּה. אֲבָל הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק וְהַמְכַבֵּד וְהַמְּרַבֵּץ וְהַמַּרְחִיץ, הַסָּךְ, הַמַּלְבִּישׁ וְהַמַּנְעִיל, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמוֹ וְהַמְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁמוֹ, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הַפּוֹעֵר עַצְמוֹ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר, זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ. הַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לְמַרְקוּלִיס, זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ: ",
+ "הַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּמְסֹר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְיַעֲבִיר בָּאֵשׁ. מָסַר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְלֹא הֶעֱבִיר בָּאֵשׁ, הֶעֱבִיר בָּאֵשׁ וְלֹא מָסַר לַמֹּלֶךְ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב, עַד שֶׁיִּמְסֹר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְיַעֲבִיר בָּאֵשׁ. בַּעַל אוֹב זֶה פִתּוֹם הַמְדַבֵּר מִשֶּׁחְיוֹ, וְיִדְּעוֹנִי זֶה הַמְדַבֵּר בְּפִיו, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בִסְקִילָה, וְהַנִּשְׁאָל בָּהֶם בְּאַזְהָרָה: ",
+ "הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, בְּדָבָר שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת. הַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּקַלְּלֵם בַּשֵּׁם. קִלְּלָם בְּכִנּוּי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: ",
+ "הַבָּא עַל נַעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָסָה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה מְאֹרָסָה וְהִיא בְבֵית אָבִיהָ. בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁנַיִם, הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּסְקִילָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי בְּחֶנֶק: ",
+ "הַמֵּסִית, זֶה הֶדְיוֹט הַמֵּסִית אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹט. אָמַר לוֹ יֵשׁ יִרְאָה בְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, כָּךְ אוֹכֶלֶת, כָּךְ שׁוֹתָה, כָּךְ מֵטִיבָה, כָּךְ מְרֵעָה. כָּל חַיָּבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין מַכְמִינִין עֲלֵיהֶם, חוּץ מִזּוֹ. אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם וְהֵן עֵדָיו, מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר לְאֶחָד, הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי חֲבֵרִים רוֹצִים בְּכָךְ. אִם הָיָה עָרוּם וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְדַבֵּר בִּפְנֵיהֶם, מַכְמִינִין לוֹ עֵדִים אֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתָּ לִּי בְיִחוּד, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לוֹ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ הֵיאַךְ נַנִּיחַ אֶת אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם וְנֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים. אִם חוֹזֵר בּוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה מוּטָב. וְאִם אָמַר כָּךְ הִיא חוֹבָתֵנוּ וְכָךְ יָפֶה לָנוּ, הָעוֹמְדִין מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר אֶעֱבֹד, אֵלֵךְ וְאֶעֱבֹד, נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד. אֲזַבֵּחַ, אֵלֵךְ וַאֲזַבֵּחַ, נֵלֵךְ וּנְזַבֵּחַ. אַקְטִיר, אֵלֵךְ וְאַקְטִיר, נֵלֵךְ וְנַקְטִיר. אֲנַסֵּךְ, אֵלֵךְ וַאֲנַסֵּךְ, נֵלֵךְ וּנְנַסֵּךְ. אֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה, אֵלֵךְ וְאֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה, נֵלֵךְ וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה. הַמַּדִּיחַ, זֶה הָאוֹמֵר, נֵלֵךְ וְנַעֲבֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה: ",
+ "הַמְכַשֵּׁף הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּב, וְלֹא הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינָיִם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שְׁנַיִם לוֹקְטִין קִשּׁוּאִין, אֶחָד לוֹקֵט פָּטוּר וְאֶחָד לוֹקֵט חַיָּב, הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּב, הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם פָּטוּר: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, מֵאֵימָתַי נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת וְעַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף זָקָן, הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְלֹא הָעֶלְיוֹן, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא), כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן, בֵּן וְלֹא בַת, בֵּן וְלֹא אִישׁ. הַקָּטָן פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא בָא לִכְלָל מִצְוֹת: \n",
+ "מֵאֵימָתַי חַיָּב, מִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל טַרְטֵימַר בָּשָׂר וְיִשְׁתֶּה חֲצִי לֹג יַיִן הָאִיטַלְקִי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, מָנֶה בָּשָׂר וְלֹג יָיִן. אָכַל בַּחֲבוּרַת מִצְוָה, אָכַל בְּעִבּוּר הַחֹדֶשׁ, אָכַל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, אָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, אָכַל טֶבֶל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ, אָכַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִצְוָה וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא עֲבֵרָה, אָכַל כָּל מַאֲכָל וְלֹא אָכַל בָּשָׂר, שָׁתָה כָל מַשְׁקֶה וְלֹא שָׁתָה יַיִן, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר וְיִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי כג) אַל תְּהִי בְסֹבְאֵי יָיִן בְּזֹלְלֵי בָשָׂר לָמוֹ: \n",
+ "גָּנַב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיו, מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אֲחֵרִים, מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים וְאָכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיו, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, עַד שֶׁיִּגְנֹב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וְיֹאכַל בִּרְשׁוּת אֲחֵרִים. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיִּגְנֹב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וּמִשֶּׁל אִמּוֹ: \n",
+ "הָיָה אָבִיו רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ אֵינָהּ רוֹצָה, אָבִיו אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ רוֹצָה, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם לֹא הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לְאָבִיו, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם גִּדֵּם אוֹ חִגֵּר אוֹ אִלֵּם אוֹ סוּמָא אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְלֹא גִדְּמִין. וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ, וְלֹא חִגְּרִין. וְאָמְרוּ, וְלֹא אִלְּמִין. בְּנֵנוּ זֶה, וְלֹא סוּמִין. אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ, וְלֹא חֵרְשִׁין. מַתְרִין בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ. חָזַר וְקִלְקֵל, נִדּוֹן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְאֵינוֹ נִסְקָל עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) בְּנֵנוּ זֶה, זֶהוּ שֶׁלָּקָה בִּפְנֵיכֶם. בָּרַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, פָּטוּר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בָּרַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, חַיָּב: \n",
+ "בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה נִדּוֹן עַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ, יָמוּת זַכַּאי וְאַל יָמוּת חַיָּב, שֶׁמִּיתָתָן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. יַיִן וְשֵׁנָה לָרְשָׁעִים, הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. פִּזּוּר לָרְשָׁעִים, הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. כִּנּוּס לָרְשָׁעִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים, הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם. שֶׁקֶט לָרְשָׁעִים, רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים, הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם: \n",
+ "הַבָּא בַמַּחְתֶּרֶת נִדּוֹן עַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ. הָיָה בָא בַמַּחְתֶּרֶת וְשָׁבַר אֶת הֶחָבִית, אִם יֶשׁ לוֹ דָמִים, חַיָּב. אִם אֵין לוֹ דָמִים, פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן שֶׁמַּצִּילִין אוֹתָן בְּנַפְשָׁן, הָרוֹדֵף אַחַר חֲבֵרוֹ לְהָרְגוֹ, אַחַר הַזְּכוּר וְאַחַר הַנַּעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָסָה. אֲבָל הָרוֹדֵף אַחַר בְּהֵמָה, וְהַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֵין מַצִּילִין אוֹתָן בְּנַפְשָׁן: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין, הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, וּבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנְּתָה. יֵשׁ בִּכְלָל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, בִּתּוֹ, וּבַת בִּתּוֹ, וּבַת בְּנוֹ, וּבַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וּבַת בִּתָּהּ, וּבַת בְּנָהּ, חֲמוֹתוֹ, וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ, וְאֵם חָמִיו. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנֶּהֱרָגִים, הָרוֹצֵחַ וְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדָּחַת. רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁהִכָּה אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בְאֶבֶן אוֹ בְבַרְזֶל, וְכָבַשׁ עָלָיו לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הָאוּר וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת מִשָּׁם, וָמֵת, חַיָּב. דְּחָפוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הָאוּר וְיָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת מִשָּׁם, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. שִׁסָּה בוֹ אֶת הַכֶּלֶב, שִׁסָּה בוֹ אֶת הַנָּחָשׁ, פָּטוּר. הִשִּׁיךְ בּוֹ אֶת הַנָּחָשׁ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. הַמַּכֶּה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין בְּאֶבֶן בֵּין בְּאֶגְרוֹף וַאֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה, וְהֵקֵל מִמַּה שֶּׁהָיָה וּלְאַחַר מִכָּאן הִכְבִּיד וָמֵת, חַיָּב. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, פָּטוּר, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר: \n",
+ "נִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם, לַנָּכְרִי וְהָרַג אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לִנְפָלִים, וְהָרַג בֶּן קְיָמָא, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל מָתְנָיו וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית הַגָּדוֹל וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. אֲבָל נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ, וָמֵת, חַיָּב. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן, וָמֵת, חַיָּב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה, פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים, כֻּלָּן פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתָן לְכִפָּה. כָּל חַיָּבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה, נִדּוֹנִין בַּקַּלָּה. הַנִּסְקָלִין בַּנִּשְׂרָפִין, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, נִדּוֹנִין בִּסְקִילָה, שֶׁהַשְּׂרֵפָה חֲמוּרָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, נִדּוֹנִין בִּשְׂרֵפָה, שֶׁהַסְּקִילָה חֲמוּרָה. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אִלּוּ לֹא הָיְתָה שְׂרֵפָה חֲמוּרָה, לֹא נִתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנְּתָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִלּוּ לֹא הָיְתָה סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, לֹא נִתְּנָה לַמְגַדֵּף וְלָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הַנֶּהֱרָגִין בַּנֶּחֱנָקִין, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, בְּסַיִף. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בְּחֶנֶק: \n",
+ "מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בִּשְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, נִדּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה. עָבַר עֲבֵרָה שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת, נִדּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, נִדּוֹן בַּזִקָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁבָּאָה עָלָיו: \n",
+ "מִי שֶׁלָּקָה וְשָׁנָה, בֵּית דִּין מַכְנִיסִים אוֹתוֹ לְכִפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעֹרִין עַד שֶׁכְּרֵסוֹ מִתְבַּקָּעַת. הַהוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים, מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ לְכִפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לֶחֶם צַר וּמַיִם לָחַץ: \n",
+ "הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת הַקַּסְוָה וְהַמְקַלֵּל בַּקּוֹסֵם וְהַבּוֹעֵל אֲרַמִּית, קַנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. כֹּהֵן שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ בְּטֻמְאָה, אֵין אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין, אֶלָּא פִרְחֵי כְהֻנָּה מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה וּמַפְצִיעִין אֶת מֹחוֹ בִּגְזִירִין. זָר שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, בְּחֶנֶק. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בִּידֵי שָׁמָיִם: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ס) וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם, וְאֶפִּיקוֹרֶס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹרֵא בַסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר (שמות טו) כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה' רֹפְאֶךָ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו: \n",
+ "שְׁלֹשָׁה מְלָכִים וְאַרְבָּעָה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. שְׁלֹשָׁה מְלָכִים, יָרָבְעָם, אַחְאָב, וּמְנַשֶּׁה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְנַשֶּׁה יֶשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברי הימים ב לג) וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אֵלָיו וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ וַיִּשְׁמַע תְּחִנָּתוֹ וַיְשִׁיבֵהוּ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לְמַלְכוּתוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לְמַלְכוּתוֹ הֱשִׁיבוֹ וְלֹא לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא הֱשִׁיבוֹ. אַרְבָּעָה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, בִּלְעָם, וְדוֹאֵג, וַאֲחִיתֹפֶל, וְגֵחֲזִי: \n",
+ "דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא וְאֵין עוֹמְדִין בַּדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ו) לֹא יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם, לֹא דִין וְלֹא רוּחַ. דּוֹר הַפַּלָּגָה אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית יא) וַיָּפֶץ ה' אֹתָם מִשָּׁם עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ. וַיָּפֶץ ה' אֹתָם, בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. וּמִשָּׁם הֱפִיצָם ה', לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. אַנְשֵׁי סְדוֹם אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יג) וְאַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם רָעִים וְחַטָּאִים לַה' מְאֹד. רָעִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. וְחַטָּאִים, לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. אֲבָל עוֹמְדִין בַּדִּין. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ אֵין עוֹמְדִין בַּדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים א) עַל כֵּן לֹא יָקֻמוּ רְשָׁעִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט וְחַטָּאִים בַּעֲדַת צַדִּיקִים. עַל כֵּן לֹא יָקֻמוּ רְשָׁעִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט, זֶה דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל. וְחַטָּאִים בַּעֲדַת צַדִּיקִים, אֵלּוּ אַנְשֵׁי סְדוֹם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵינָם עוֹמְדִים בַּעֲדַת צַדִּיקִים אֲבָל עוֹמְדִין בַּעֲדַת רְשָׁעִים. מְרַגְּלִים אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיָּמֻתוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים מוֹצִאֵי דִבַּת הָאָרֶץ רָעָה בַּמַּגֵּפָה לִפְנֵי ה' (במדבר יד). וַיָּמֻתוּ, בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. בַּמַּגֵּפָה, בָּעוֹלָם הַבָּא. דּוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא וְאֵין עוֹמְדִין בַּדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) בַּמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה יִתַּמּוּ וְשָׁם יָמֻתוּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, עֲלֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהלים נ) אִסְפוּ לִי חֲסִידָי כֹּרְתֵי בְרִיתִי עֲלֵי זָבַח. עֲדַת קֹרַח אֵינָהּ עֲתִידָה לַעֲלוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טז) וַתְּכַס עֲלֵיהֶם הָאָרֶץ, בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וַיֹּאבְדוּ מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל, לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, עֲלֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר (שמואל א ב) ה' מֵמִית וּמְחַיֶּה מוֹרִיד שְׁאוֹל וַיָּעַל. עֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים אֵינָן עֲתִידִין לַחֲזֹר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כט) וַיַּשְׁלִכֵם אֶל אֶרֶץ אַחֶרֶת כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה, מַה הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה הוֹלֵךְ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר, אַף הֵם הוֹלְכִים וְאֵינָם חוֹזְרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה, מַה הַיּוֹם מַאֲפִיל וּמֵאִיר, אַף עֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים שֶׁאָפַל לָהֶן, כָּךְ עָתִיד לְהָאִיר לָהֶן: \n",
+ "אַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת אֵין לָהֶן חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יג) יָצְאוּ אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי בְלִיַּעַל מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וַיַּדִּיחוּ אֶת ישְׁבֵי עִירָם. וְאֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִים עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ מֵאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר וּמֵאוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט, וְעַד שֶׁיֻּדַּח רֻבָּהּ, וְעַד שֶׁיַּדִּיחוּם אֲנָשִׁים. הִדִּיחוּהָ נָשִׁים וּקְטַנִּים אוֹ שֶׁהֻדַּח מִעוּטָהּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ מַדִּיחֶיהָ חוּצָה לָהּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִיחִידִים. וּצְרִיכִין שְׁנֵי עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּיְּחִידִים מִבַּמְּרֻבִּים, שֶׁהַיְּחִידִים בִּסְקִילָה, לְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָם פָּלֵט. וְהַמְּרֻבִּים בְּסַיִף, לְפִיכָךְ מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד: \n",
+ "הַכֵּה תַכֶּה אֶת וְגוֹ' (דברים יג). הַחַמֶּרֶת וְהַגַּמֶּלֶת הָעוֹבֶרֶת מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מַצִּילִין אוֹתָהּ. הַחֲרֵם אֹתָהּ וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ וְאֶת בְּהֶמְתָּהּ לְפִי חָרֶב (שם), מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ נִכְסֵי צַדִּיקִים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ אוֹבְדִין, שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָהּ פְּלֵטִין. וְשֶׁל רְשָׁעִים, בֵּין שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ בֵּין שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָהּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹבְדִין: \n",
+ "וְאֶת כָּל שְׁלָלָהּ תִּקְבֹּץ אֶל תּוֹךְ רְחֹבָהּ וְגוֹ' (דברים יג). אִם אֵין לָהּ רְחוֹב, עוֹשִׂין לָהּ רְחוֹב. הָיָה רְחוֹבָהּ חוּצָה לָהּ, כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ. וְשָׂרַפְתָּ בָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעִיר וְאֶת כָּל שְׁלָלָהּ כָּלִיל לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ (שם). שְׁלָלָהּ, וְלֹא שְׁלַל שָׁמָיִם. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ, הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת שֶׁבָּהּ יִפָּדוּ, וּתְרוּמוֹת יֵרָקְבוּ, מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְכִתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ יִגָּנֵזוּ. כָּלִיל לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אִם אַתֶּם עוֹשִׂים דִּין בְּעִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּאִלּוּ אַתֶּם מַעֲלִין עוֹלָה כָלִיל לְפָנָי. וְהָיְתָה תֵּל עוֹלָם לֹא תִבָּנֶה עוֹד (דברים יג), לֹא תֵעָשֶׂה אֲפִלּוּ גַנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּסִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, לֹא תִבָּנֶה עוֹד, לִכְמוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה אֵינָהּ נִבְנֵית, אֲבָל נַעֲשֵׂית הִיא גַּנּוֹת וּפַרְדֵּסִים. וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם (שם), שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם, חֲרוֹן אַף בָּעוֹלָם. אָבְדוּ רְשָׁעִים מִן הָעוֹלָם, נִסְתַּלֵּק חֲרוֹן אַף מִן הָעוֹלָם: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַנֶּחֱנָקִין, הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְגוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְזָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, וּנְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר, וְהַמִּתְנַבֵּא בְּשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְזוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ. הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בָהֶן חַבּוּרָה. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּמְקַלֵּל מִבַּמַּכֶּה, שֶׁהַמְקַלֵּל לְאַחַר מִיתָה חַיָּב, וְהַמַּכֶּה לְאַחַר מִיתָה פָּטוּר. הַגּוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד) וְהִתְעַמֶּר בּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ. הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת בְּנוֹ, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. גָּנַב מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: \n",
+ "זָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יז) כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט וְגוֹ'. שְׁלֹשָׁה בָתֵּי דִינִין הָיוּ שָׁם, אֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב עַל פֶּתַח הַר הַבַּיִת, וְאֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב עַל פֶּתַח הָעֲזָרָה, וְאֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית. בָּאִים לָזֶה שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח הַר הַבַּיִת, וְאוֹמֵר, כָּךְ דָּרַשְׁתִּי וְכָךְ דָּרְשׁוּ חֲבֵרָי, כָּךְ לִמַּדְתִּי וְכָךְ לִמְּדוּ חֲבֵרָי. אִם שָׁמְעוּ, אוֹמְרִים לָהֶם. וְאִם לָאו, בָּאִין לָהֶם לְאוֹתָן שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח הָעֲזָרָה, וְאוֹמֵר, כָּךְ דָּרַשְׁתִּי וְכָךְ דָּרְשׁוּ חֲבֵרָי, כָּךְ לִמַּדְתִּי וְכָךְ לִמְּדוּ חֲבֵרָי. אִם שָׁמְעוּ, אוֹמְרִים לָהֶם. וְאִם לָאו, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ בָּאִים לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית, שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ יוֹצֵאת תּוֹרָה לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה'. חָזַר לְעִירוֹ וְשָׁנָה וְלִמֵּד כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לָמֵד, פָּטוּר. וְאִם הוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת, חַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיּוֹרֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת. תַּלְמִיד שֶׁהוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת, פָּטוּר, נִמְצָא חֻמְרוֹ קֻלּוֹ: \n",
+ "חֹמֶר בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מִבְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּפִלִּין, כְּדֵי לַעֲבֹר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, פָּטוּר. חֲמִשָּׁה טוֹטָפוֹת, לְהוֹסִיף עַל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, חַיָּב: \n",
+ "אֵין מְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ לֹא בְבֵית דִּין שֶׁבְּעִירוֹ וְלֹא בְבֵית דִּין שֶׁבְּיַבְנֶה, אֶלָּא מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וּמְשַׁמְּרִין אוֹתוֹ עַד הָרֶגֶל וּמְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ בָרֶגֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) וְכָל הָעָם יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ וְלֹא יְזִידוּן עוֹד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵין מְעַנִּין אֶת דִּינוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, אֶלָּא מְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד, וְכוֹתְבִין וְשׁוֹלְחִין שְׁלוּחִים בְּכָל הַמְּקוֹמוֹת, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נִתְחַיֵּב מִיתָה בְּבֵית דִּין: \n",
+ "נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר הַמִּתְנַבֵּא עַל מַה שֶּׁלֹּא שָׁמַע וּמַה שֶּׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר לוֹ, מִיתָתוֹ בִידֵי אָדָם. אֲבָל הַכּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת נְבוּאָתוֹ, וְהַמְוַתֵּר עַל דִּבְרֵי נָבִיא, וְנָבִיא שֶׁעָבַר עַל דִּבְרֵי עַצְמוֹ, מִיתָתוֹ בִידֵי שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יח) אָנֹכִי אֶדְרשׁ מֵעִמּוֹ: \n",
+ "הַמִּתְנַבֵּא בְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְאוֹמֵר, כָּךְ אָמְרָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֲפִלּוּ כִוֵּן אֶת הַהֲלָכָה, לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַטָּמֵא וּלְטַהֵר אֶת הַטָּהוֹר. הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל לַנִּשּׂוּאִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה, הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי זֶה בְחֶנֶק. וְזוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ, שֶׁכָּל הַזּוֹמְמִין מַקְדִּימִין לְאוֹתָהּ מִיתָה, חוּץ מִזּוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ: \n"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "versions": [
+ [
+ "Torat Emet 357",
+ "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "heTitle": "משנה סנהדרין",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/English/Le Talmud de J\303\251rusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr].json" "b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/English/Le Talmud de J\303\251rusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr].json"
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e5532059d8d1c47294bc8c8607ba4b4bf8713acd
--- /dev/null
+++ "b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/English/Le Talmud de J\303\251rusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr].json"
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Shevuot",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002182155/NLI",
+ "versionTitle": "Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "actualLanguage": "fr",
+ "languageFamilyName": "french",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה שבועות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Il y a deux sortes de serments, qui (par une subdivision) donnent quatre. Il en est de même de la connaissance des impuretés, des transports le jour du Shabat, et de l’inspection des plaies.",
+ "Ainsi, lorsque quelqu’un après avoir appris d’abord qu’il est impur et (après avoir p. ex. mangé d’une sainteté ou être entré au sanctuaire) apprend ensuite qu’il est impur, tandis qu’au milieu de ces deux connaissances (pendant son acte coupable) il ignorait son état impur; il est passible du sacrifice ascendant et descendant. S’il a eu connaissance de son état avant l’acte, non après, le délit sera expié par le bouc dont le sang est aspergé à l’intérieur du sanctuaire, au jour du Grand Pardon, et ce jour même suspend la punition, jusqu’à ce que le délinquant apprennent de nouveau son état et qu’il offre un sacrifice ascendant et descendant (proportionnel).",
+ "Si l’homme impur n’a pas eu connaissance de son état avant son acte, mais après, le délit sera expié par le bouc dont le sang est aspergé en dehors du sanctuaire, au jour du Grand Pardon et en ce jour même, comme il est dit (Nb 29, 11): En dehors du sacrifice expiatoire du pardon. Or, l’effet du pardon obtenu par un bouc est aussi obtenu par l’autre; comme le bouc au sang aspergé à l’intérieur effectue seulement le pardon à l’égard d’un délit connu, de même le bouc aspergé au dehors effectue seulement le pardon dans les mêmes conditions.",
+ "Quant au fait dont le délinquant ne s’est rendu compte ni avant ni après l’acte, il est expié par le sacrifice des boucs offerts aux jours de fête et aux néoménies. Tel est l’avis de R. Juda. R. Simon dit: il sera expié par les boucs offerts aux jours de fête, non par ceux des néoménies. Quel est donc l’objet d’expiation de ces derniers sacrifices? Ils sont offerts pour l’homme pur qui a mangé de l’impur (non pour l’inverse). Selon R. Meir, l’effet d’expiation de tous les boucs est le même en ce qui concerne l’impureté du sanctuaire et de ses saintetés. R. Simon dit: les boucs offerts aux néoménies donnent le pardon à l’homme pur qui a mangé de l’impur; celui offert aux jours de fête donne le pardon à celui qui aurait mangé à l’état impur sans en avoir eu connaissance ni avant ni après; enfin, le bouc offert au jour du Grand Pardon pardonne un tel délit accompli avec inconscience avant l’acte, mais dont on a eu connaissance après l’acte. Les autres docteurs dirent à R. Simon: peut-on offrir un de ces sacrifices à la place de l’autre? —Oui, répondit-il. Mais comment est-ce admissible, remarquèrent-ils, puisque l’objet de l’expiation n’est pas le même? Ils ont tous ce point commun, répondit-il, d’expier l’impureté survenue dans le sanctuaire, ou aux saintetés.",
+ "R. Simon b. Juda dit en son nom: les boucs offerts aux néoménies expient la faute de l’homme pur qui a mangé de l’impur; ceux offerts aux fêtes ont un effet supérieur, en ce qu’ils expient, non seulement le délit de l’homme pur qui a mangé de l’impur, mais encore le délit de celui qui n’en a eu connaissance ni avant ni après; enfin le sacrifice offert au jour du Grand Pardon a cette supériorité de plus qu’il expie, outre les deux délits précédents, celui de l’homme qui a mangé à l’état impur, était dont il a eu connaissance ensuite. Sur quoi on lui demanda: peut-on offrir un tel sacrifice à la place de l’autre —Oui, répondit-il. On conçoit, fut-il observé, que l'on puisse offrir aux néoménies le bouc du Grand Pardon, mais comment l’inverse est-il admissible, d’effectuer un pardon auquel le sacrifice n’est pas destiné? —Cela ne fait rien, dit-il, car tous ces sacrifices ont ce point commun d’expier l’impureté survenue au Temple, ou aux saintetés.",
+ "Pour une impureté volontaire survenue dans le Temple ou aux saintetés, le bouc offert à l’intérieur au jour du Grand Pardon et ce jour même provoque l’expiation. Pour la transgression d’autres préceptes de la Loi, graves ou non, volontaires ou involontaires, dont on a connaissance ou non, affirmatifs ou négatifs, avec pénalité du retranchement ou mort par le tribunal humain, le bouc envoyé à Azazel le jour du Grand Pardon est une expiation.",
+ "A cet égard sont égaux les simples israélites, les cohanim et même le grand prêtre oint comme tel. Toutefois, quelle différence y a-t-il entre les premiers et les suivants? C’est que le sang du taureau offert en ce jour donne aux cohanim le pardon pour l’impureté à l’égard du Temple et des saintetés. R. Simon dit: comme le sang du bouc sacrifié à l’intérieur est la cause du pardon pour Israël, de même le sang du taureau sert d’expiation aux cohanim. Comme la confession faite lors de l’expédition du bouc à Azazel sert d’expiation à tout Israël, de même la confession faite lors du sacrifice du taureau sert d’expiation aux fautes des cohanim."
+ ],
+ [
+ "La connaissance des impuretés est de deux sortes, qui se décomposent en quatre. Ainsi, un cohen devenu impur le sait, puis cette impureté échappe à sa pensée, mais il sait qu’il mange un objet sacré; ou bien il ignore que l’aliment est consacré, mais il sait qu’il est dans un état impur, ou encore il ignorait l’un et l’autre en mangeant l’aliment sacré, ce dont il a eu connaissance ensuite; il sera passible du sacrifice ascendant et descendant. Si devenu impur il le sait, puis cette impureté échappe à sa pensée, mais l’homme se souvient de la consécration de l’objet, ou si l’état de la sainteté lui échappe, mais il se souvient de l’impureté, ou s’il oublie l’un et l’autre, puis entre au Temple par inconscience, mais après être sorti il se rend compte du fait fautif, il doit un sacrifice proportionnel à ses moyens.",
+ "Peu importe que l’homme impur pénètre dans l’enceinte du Temple, ou dans l’annexe à l’enceinte, car les annexes à la ville de Jérusalem ou à l’enceinte du Temple sont érigées seulement par l’ordre du roi et du prophète, par l’oracle des Ourim We-Toumim et par le grand tribunal de 71 membres, en offrant deux gâteaux d’actions de grâce, accompagnés d’un chant; après le cortège du tribunal, on portait les dits gâteaux, suivie par tout Israël. On mangeait l’un des pains que l’on portait à l’intérieur; on brûlait l’autre au dehors. Dans tout emplacement annexe, pour lequel le cérémonial d’inauguration n’avait pas été ainsi suivi, on n’était pas coupable en y entrant à l’état impur.",
+ "Si après être devenu impur dans l’enceinte du Temple, il oublie cet état d’impureté, mais se souvient de la sainteté du lieu, ou s’il oublie cette sainteté, mais se souvient de son impureté, ou si l’un et l’autre lui échappent, s’il fait une génuflexion, ou s’il n’y séjourne que le temps nécessaire à cet effet, s’il a suivi le long chemin pour quitter le Temple, il est coupable; s’il a suivi la voie la plus courte, il n’est pas coupable. C’est là un précepte affirmatif à l’égard du Temple, qui n’entraîne pas l’obligation d’offrir le sacrifice du taureau.",
+ "Quand pour le précepte relatif aux menstrues, la transgression comporte-t-elle un sacrifice? Si quelqu’un a des relations avec une femme pure, laquelle déclare (pendant le coït) être devenue impure lorsque l’homme se retire aussitôt d’elle, il est coupable, quia tam egressus ejus quam ingressus est ei voluptas.",
+ "R. Eliézer dit que pour la mention de la contagion d’impureté par un ver rampant, il est dit (Lv 5, 2): s’il n’y pense plus; donc seulement en cas d’oubli que c’était un ver rampant, on est coupable, non pour l’oubli de se trouver dans le Temple. R. aqiba dit: de l’expression “il a oublié qu’il est impur” (ibid.) on conclut à la culpabilité pour l’oubli de l’impureté, non pour l’oubli de la sainteté du Temple. Selon R. Ismaël au contraire, du double emploi de l’expression “il oublie” on conclut à la culpabilité pour chaque oubli, celui de l’impureté et celui de la sainteté du Temple."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Les serments sont de deux sortes, qui se composent de quatre. Ainsi, “je jure de manger, ou: de ne pas manger”, ou bien “je jure avoir mangé, ou: n’avoir pas mangé”. Celui qui dit “je jure que je ne mangerai pas”, et a mangé si peu que ce soit, est passible de la pénalité. Tel est l’avis de R. aqiba. Mais, lui fut-il objecté, où trouvons-nous dit qu’une consommation interdite minime entraîne une condamnation, de façon qu’ici l’auteur du faux serment soit coupable pour si peu? C’est vrai, répliqua R. aqiba; mais nous ne trouvons pas davantage que quelqu’un, pour avoir parlé à tort, soit tenu d’offrir un sacrifice, et pourtant cela arrive. Celui qui dit: “je jure que je ne mangerai pas”, et il a mangé et bu, n’est qu’une fois coupable. Celui qui dit: “je jure de ne manger ni boire”, puis il mange et boit, est deux fois coupable.",
+ "S’il jure de ne pas manger, et il mange un pain de froment, un d’orge et un d’épeautre, il n’est qu’une fois coupable. Mais s’il précise par serment de ne vouloir manger ni pain de froment, ni d’orge, ni d’épeautre, puis il les mange, il est coupable autant de fois (3 fois).",
+ "De même, s’il jure de ne pas boire, puis il boit plusieurs liquides, il n’est qu’une fois coupable. Mais s’il jure ne vouloir boire ni vin, ni huile, ni miel, puis il boit de tout, il est 3 fois coupable.",
+ "Lorsque quelqu’un ayant juré de ne pas manger consomme des mets qui ne valent rien, ou s’il boit un liquide qui n’est pas potable, il n’est pas condamnable. Si quelqu’un jure ne pas vouloir manger, puis il mange de la chair d’animaux défendus, ou de bêtes déchirées, des reptiles ou des vermisseaux, il devra un sacrifice pour infraction au serment prêté. R. Simon le déclare non coupable pour le serment (en raison de son inapplication à des objets interdits). S’il dit: “Je fais vœu que ma femme ne puisse jouir de moi si je mange aujourd’hui”, puis il mange des chairs interdites, des reptiles et vermisseaux, sa femme lui sera interdite.",
+ "Il importe peu que le serment se réfère à des objets concernant celui qui l’énonce, ou concernant autrui, qu’ils soient réels ou non. Ainsi, il dit: “je jure de donner à un tel, ou de ne pas lui donner”, ou: “je jure lui avoir donné, ou ne pas lui avoir donné”, ou: “que je dormirai, ou que je ne dormirai pas”, ou “que j’ai dormi, ou que je n’ai pas dormi”, ou “que je jetterai un caillou à la mer, ou que je ne le jetterai pas” ou “que je l’ai jeté, ou que je ne l’ai pas jeté”. Selon R. Ismaël, on n’est coupable que pour un faux serment relatif à l’avenir, car il est dit (ibid. 4): de faire le mal ou le bien (futur). S’il en est ainsi, observa R. aqiba, il devrait s’agir seulement des serments ayant en vue le mal ou le bien; mais quelle sera la règle pour ceux qui n’ont pas en vue le mal ou le bien? On le sait, répondit R. Ismaël par extension des termes bibliques. Si tu admets une telle extension, répliqua R. aqiba, on peut aussi l’admettre pour tout.",
+ "Celui qui a juré de transgresser un précepte religieux et ne l’a pas fait n’est pas condamnable, pas plus que celui qui a juré d’accomplir un tel précepte et ne l’a pas fait. En réalité, il devrait être condamné, selon l’avis de R. Juda b. Bethera, qui dit: si l’on est condamnable pour l’énonciation de serments au sujet d’actions volontaires, non obligatoires par la Loi promulguée au mot Sinaï, à plus forte raison doit-on être coupable pour des serments relatifs à des préceptes religieux promulgués sur le mont Sinaï! Ceci ne prouve rien, fut-il répliqué, car pour le serment relatif à des actes volontaires, la négation égale l’affirmation; tandis qu’à l’égard d’un serment concernant un précepte religieux, la négation diffère de l’affirmation car si quelqu’un jure de transgresser un tel précepte et ne le fait pas, il est absous.",
+ "Quelqu’un dit: “je jure de ne pas manger ce pain, je jure de ne pas le manger” (plusieurs fois), puis il le mange, il n’est qu’une fois coupable. C’est là le serment énoncé par mégarde; pour l’avoir exprimé volontairement, on est passible de la peine des coups, et pour l’émission involontaire on est passible d’un sacrifice proportionnel; tandis que pour le serment vain, on est passible de la pénalité des coups s’il est volontaire, mais s’il est involontaire on est absous.",
+ "On appelle serment vain, celui par lequel on affirme qu’une chose est différente de l’état où elle est connue à l’homme, disant p. ex. qu’une colonne de pierre est d’or, ou d’un homme que c’est une femme, ou d’une femme que c’est un homme; ou bien d’affirmer par serment un fait impossible, p. ex. jurer d’avoir vu un chameau voler en l’air, ou de ne pas avoir vu un serpent gros comme la poutre d’un pressoir. Si quelqu’un dit avoir vu un serpent gros comme la poutre d’un pressoir. Si quelqu’un dit à des témoins: “Venez témoigner pour moi”, et ils répondent: “Nous jurons ne pas vouloir témoigner pour toi” -ce qui est défendu, (Lv 5, 1), ou si l’on jure de transgresser un précepte religieux, comme de ne pas dresser de tabernacle pour le jour de cette fête, ou de ne pas prendre une branche de palmier en ce jour, ou de ne pas porter les phylactères en faisant la prière: c’est là un serment vain, pour l’énonciation volontaire duquel on est passible de la pénalité des coups, et en cas d’émission involontaire, on est absous.",
+ "Celui qui dit: “je jure que je mangerai ce pain”, et “je jure que je ne le mangerai pas”, a énoncé d’abord un serment par mégarde, puis un serment vain; aussi, en le mangeant, il transgresse le serment vain, et en ne le mangeant pas il transgresse le serment émis par mégarde.",
+ "La méprise du serment est applicable aussi bien aux hommes qu’aux femmes, aux proches parents comme à ceux qui ne le sont pas, aux gens aptes à témoigner en justice et à ceux qui ne le sont pas, par devant le tribunal et en son absence, mais le serment doit avoir échappé à sa bouche; en cas de prestation volontaire du serment, on est passible de la pénalité des coups, et en cas involontaire, on devra apporter le sacrifice proportionnel.",
+ "Le serment vain peut émaner d’hommes ou de femmes, de parents ou de gens éloignés, de gens aptes à témoigner ou impropres à cet effet, en présence du tribunal ou en son absence; mais le serment doit émaner de sa propre bouche. Pour une telle énonciation volontaire, on est passible des coups, et pour l’émission involontaire, on est absous. Pour l’une et l’autre sorte de serment, si l’on a été adjuré par autrui, on est condamnable. Ainsi, l’un dit: “je n’ai pas mangé aujourd’hui, ou je n’ai pas porté de phylactères aujourd’hui”, et l’autre lui dit: “je t’en conjure”; sur quoi, le premier répond: Amen (oui, c’est vrai); celui-ci est condamnable."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Le serment de témoignage n’est applicable qu’aux hommes, non aux femmes, aux gens éloignés de la famille, non aux proches, à ceux qui sont propres à témoigner, non aux impropres, et seulement à ceux qui sont en état d’attester un fait, soit par devant le tribunal soit en dehors, pour un serment émis de sa propre bouche; mais pour le serment émis par autrui, on n’est coupable qu’en cas d’aveu de l’avoir assumé devant le tribunal; tel est l’avis de R. Meir. Selon les autres sages, que le serment ait été émis de sa propre bouche ou par d’autres, on n’est coupable qu'en l’avouant au tribunal.",
+ "Les témoins deviennent coupables pour serment volontaire et même pour le serment erroné, si l’attestation a été consciente; mais ils sont absous si le tout a été émis par erreur. Pour le serment énoncé volontairement, on est astreint d’offrir un sacrifice proportionnel.",
+ "Voici en quoi consiste le serment de témoignage: quelqu’un dit à deux hommes de venir témoigner pour lui, et ils lui répondent par le serment ne pas savoir de témoignage pour lui, ou s’ils disent (simplement): “Nous ne connaissons pas de témoignage à ton sujet”; sur quoi, le premier dit: “je vous en conjure”, et ils répondent: Amen; en ce cas, ils sont condamnables. S’il les a conjurés cinq fois en dehors du tribunal, puis ils viennent devant le tribunal et reconnaissent devoir attester, ils sont dispensés; mais s’ils nient encore, ils sont coupables pour chaque refus. S’il les a conjurés 5 fois devant le tribunal, et ils ont toujours nié devoir attester, ils ne sont qu’une fois coupables. R. Simon en donne la raison: c’est qu’ils ne peuvent plus revenir sur leur assertion pour avouer l’affirmative.",
+ "Si les deux témoins ont nié en même temps, ils sont tous deux condamnables; mais s’ils ont nié l’un après l’autre, le premier seul est coupable, non le second. Si l’un a nié et l’autre a reconnu la véracité, le négateur seule est coupable. S’il y avait deux séries de témoins, dont la première a nié d’abord, puis la seconde, toute deux sont coupables; car par chacune d’elles le témoignage pouvait être valable.",
+ "Quelqu’un dit aux témoins: “Je vous conjure de venir témoigner que j’ai à réclamer dans la possession d’un tel un dépôt, ou un prêt, ou un vol, ou un objet perdu”; sur quoi ils jurent n’avoir pas de témoignage à lui donner; ils ne sont qu’une fois coupables pour le tout. Mais s’ils précisent le serment et disent: “Nous jurons ne pas savoir que tu as à réclamer d’un tel un dépôt, ni un prêt, ni un vol, ni une perte”, ils sont coupables pour chacune de ces assertions. S’il dit: “Je vous conjure de venir témoigner que j’ai à réclamer d’un tel un dépôt de froment, d’orge, d’épeautre”, et ils répondent en jurant n’avoir pas connaissance qu’ils doivent témoigner pour lui, ils ne sont qu’une fois coupables; mais s’ils précisent le serment et disent: “Nous jurons ne pas savoir témoigner pour toi que tu aies à réclamer d’un tel du froment, ni de l’orge, ni de l’épeautre”, ils sont condamnables pour chacune de ces assertions.",
+ "Quelqu’un dit: “je vous conjure de venir témoigner que j’ai le droit de réclamer à un tel un dédommagement ou un demi dédommagement, ou le paiement du double, du quadruple, du quintuple, ou: qu’un tel a violé ma fille, ou qu’il a séduit ma fille, ou que mon fils m’a frappé, ou qu’un tel m’a blessé, ou a brûlé mes gerbes de blé au jour du Grand Pardon”, ils sont condamnables s’ils s’abstiennent.",
+ "Quelqu’un dit: “je vous conjure de venir témoigner que je suis cohen, ou lévite, que je ne suis pas fils d’une femme répudiée, ni le fils d’une femme qui a refusé le lévirat, ou qu’un tel est cohen, ou qu’un tel est lévite, ou qu’il n’est pas le fils d’une femme répudiée, ni d’une femme qui a refusé le lévirat, ou qu’un tel a violé sa fille, ou l’a séduite, ou que mon fils m’a blessé, ou qu’un prochain m’a blessé, ou a allumé mes gerbes de blé un jour de Shabat”; ils sont absous de n’avoir pas attesté.",
+ "Quelqu’un dit: “Je vous conjure de venir témoigner qu’un tel a promis de me donner 200 zouz et ne me les a pas remis”; ils sont alors absous (de s’abstenir); car ils sont seulement coupables s’il s’agit d’une réclamation d’argent qui ressemble à un dépôt (et serait niée).",
+ "Quelqu’un dit: “je vous conjure, aussitôt que vous saurez me donner un témoignage, de venir l’exprimer”; ils sont alors absous, parce que le serment précède le témoignage.",
+ "Quelqu’un étant dans une synagogue dit: “Je vous conjure, si vous savez me donner un témoignage, de venir l’exprimer”, ils sont absous (à moins d’avoir spécialement adressé son objurgation à ceux qui pouvaient témoigner pour lui).",
+ "Quelqu’un dit à deux hommes: “Je vous conjure, vous tel et tel, si vous avez un témoignage à me donner, de venir l’exprimer”; sur quoi ils répliquent: “nous jurons ne rien savoir à ton sujet”, tandis qu’en réalité ils le savent, mais seulement d’après l’assertion d’un autre témoin, ou si l’un d’eux est un proche parent de l’objurgateur, ou impropre à attester; ils sont alors absous.",
+ "Quelqu’un envoie son esclave pour les conjurer, ou l’individu accusé dit aux témoins: “Je vous conjure, si vous avez un témoignage à donner en sa faveur, de venir l’exprimer pour lui”; ils sont absous, et ils ne sont coupables qu’en entendant l’objurgation de la bouche de l’intéressé.",
+ "Quelqu’un dit: “Je vous conjure, ou: je vous oblige (par serment), ou: je vous lie (de même)”; ils sont coupables. Mais s’il dit: “par le ciel et la terre”, ils sont absous. S’il les conjure par le nom divin, soit par les lettres ALEF et DALET, soit par les lettres YOD et HE, ou par les attributs divins SHADAI (tout puissant), Sabaoth, miséricordieux, gracieux, longanime, plein de bienveillance, ou par tout autre qualificatif de la Divinité, ils sont coupables (c’est une objurgation formelle). Celui qui blasphème Dieu par un de ces noms quelconques est coupable; tel est l’avis de R. Meir. Les autres sages le déclarent absous. Celui qui maudit son père ou sa mère par un de ces surnoms divins est coupable, selon l’avis de R. Meir; les autres sages le déclarent absous. Celui qui maudit lui-même ou maudit son prochain par un de ces noms transgresse la défense relative à l’énonciation vaine du nom divin (Ex 20, 7). Si quelqu’un dit au témoin (Dt 28, 12): Dieu te frappera, ou: que Dieu te frappe ainsi, c’est là la malédiction inscrite dans la Loi. Mais s’il dit: “que Dieu ne te frappe pas, qu’il te bénisse, qu’il te fasse du bien”, R. Meir le déclare coupable; les autres sages l’absolvent."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Le serment relatif aux dépôt a lieu pour les hommes et les femmes, pour les parents du demandeur et pour ceux qui ne le sont pas, par devant le tribunal ou en dehors, mais seulement si le serment émane de la bouche même de celui qui le prête, non s’il est émis par d’autres; en ce cas, il est seulement coupable s’il le nie devant le tribunal. Tel est l’avis de R. Meir; selon les autres sages, soit que le serment émane de la bouche même de celui qui le prête, soit que d’autres l’émettent, celui qui le nie est aussitôt coupable. On est coupable d’avoir émis volontairement un faux serment, même en ignorant quelle est la pénalité, si l’on a conscience du mensonge au sujet d’un dépôt, mais on n’est pas coupable si ce dernier fait aussi a eu lieu par erreur. Pour le faux serment volontaire, la culpabilité entraîne l’obligation d’un sacrifice de péché valant deux sicles d’argent.",
+ "Le serment pour dépôt confié a lieu au cas suivant: quelqu’un dit à autrui: “Rends-moi le dépôt que tu as de moi en mains”; et l’autre répond: “Je jure que tu n’as rien chez moi, ou (simplement): tu n’as rien chez moi”; sur quoi le demandeur dit: “Je te conjure”, et le défendeur l’accepte en disant: Amen; celui-ci est coupable (en cas de faux). S’il l’a conjuré 5 fois, par devant le tribunal ou en dehors, et l’interpellé nie devoir, celui-ci est coupable autant de fois qu’il y a eu d’objurgations. R. Simon en donne la raison, c’est qu’à chaque objurgation l’interpellé pourrait avouer.",
+ "Lorsque cinq personnes réclament à quelqu’un un dépôt qu’elles prétendent lui avoir confié, et le défendeur répond qu’il jure ne pas en avoir à elles, il n’est qu’une fois coupable (en cas de faux); mais s’il répond qu’il jure n’avoir en main “ni à toi, ni à toi, etc.” (à chaque personne), il est coupable autant de fois qu’il s’adresse à chacun. Selon R. Eliézer, il est autant de fois coupable, lorsque le mot “serment” se trouve à la fin de son expression (répétée cinq fois); selon R. Simon, il faudra (pour cette culpabilité renouvelée) qu’il y ait eu répétition du mot serment à chaque personne (et pas seulement à la fin de l’ensemble). Si quelqu’un dit à l’autre: “donne-moi le froment, l’orge et l’épeautre que j’ai chez toi”, et l’autre nie par serment l’avoir chez lui, celui-ci ne sera qu’une fois coupable pour faux serment (le cas échéant); mais si ce dernier dit: “Je jure n’avoir à toi ni froment, ni orge, ni épeautre”, il est coupable pour chaque assertion (3 fois). R. Meir dit: Si même la demande du blé comporte le singulier, le dépositaire est plusieurs fois coupable.",
+ "Quelqu’un dit à un autre: “tu as violé ou séduit ma fille”, et celui-ci affirme que ce n’est pas; sur quoi le premier dit: “Je te conjure”, et l’autre réplique: Amen; ce dernier est coupable. R. Simon le déclare absous, car si l’accusé avait avoué un tel fait, il eût échappé à l’amende. On lui répliqua: il est bien vrai que, par son propre aveu, l’accusé eût évité de payer l’amende, mais il devrait payer toutefois à la jeune fille pour la honte et le dommage causés.",
+ "Si quelqu’un dit à un autre: “tu as volé mon bœuf”, et celui-ci affirme que ce n’est pas; sur quoi, le premier dit: “je te conjure”, et l’autre réplique: Amen; ce dernier est coupable. Mais si celui-ci dit: “j’ai volé, il est vrai, l’animal, mais je ne l’ai pas égorgé, ni vendu”; sur quoi, le premier dit: “je te conjure”, et l’autre réplique: Amen; ce dernier est absous. Quelqu’un dit à un autre: “ton bœuf a tué le mien”, et celui-ci affirme que ce n’est pas; sur quoi le premier dit: “Je te conjure”, et l’autre réplique: Amen; ce dernier est coupable. Quelqu’un dit à un autre: “ton bœuf a tué mon esclave”, et celui-ci affirme que ce n’est pas; sur quoi le premier dit: “Je te conjure”, et l’autre réplique: Amen; ce dernier est absous. Quelqu’un dit à un autre “tu m’as causé un dommage corporel ou une blessure”, et celui-ci affirme que ce n’est pas; sur quoi le premier dit: “Je te conjure”, et l’autre réplique: Amen; ce dernier est coupable. Si l’esclave dit au maître: “tu m’as fait tomber une dent, ou tu m’as crevé un œil”, et le maître affirme que ce n’est pas; sur quoi, l’esclave dit: “Je te conjure”, et le maître réplique: Amen; celui-ci est absous. Voici la règle: chaque fois que sur sa propre assertion on serait tenu de payer on est coupable pour le faux serment; au cas contraire, on est absous."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Le tribunal oblige le défendeur de prêter serment, s’il avoue devoir une partie de ce que son adversaire demande. La demande doit avoir au moins la valeur de 2 maot d’argent et le débiteur doit avouer la valeur d’au moins une prouta. Si le demandeur réclame une chose, et que l’aveu porte sur une autre, le défendeur n’est pas obligé de prêter serment; par ex. si le demandeur réclame de l’argent du poids de 2 maot que le défendeur avoue lui devoir du cuivre du poids d’une peroutah, il n’est pas obligé de prêter serment. Mais si le demandeur réclame l’argent de 2 maot et une peroutah, et que le défendeur avoue devoir la peroutah, il doit prêter serment qu’il ne doit pas les 2 maot. Si le demandeur réclame cent zouz, et le défendeur dit qu’il ne doit rien, il est acquitté sans serment; mais s’il avoue devoir 50 zouz, il prête serment qu’il ne doit pas davantage. Si le demandeur dit: “tu devais à mon père cent zouz”, et le débiteur dit qu’il ne lui en devait que 50, il est acquitté sans serment, car il est considéré comme un homme qui, ayant trouvé ce que quelqu’un avait perdu, le lui rend, puisqu’il aurait pu nier tout, et le demandeur doit lui savoir gré de son aveu des 50 zouz.\r",
+ "Un individu dit à un autre: “Tu me dois cent zouz”. Si l’autre dit (devant témoins) que oui, et plus tard le demandeur en réclame le paiement, bien que le défendeur dise avoir payé, il est acquitté; s’il dit qu’il n’était jamais débiteur, il est condamné (puisqu’il a dit d’abord devant témoins qu’il devait l’argent). Le demandeur dit: “tu me dois cent zouz”; si l’autre dit que oui, puis le demandeur dit: “tu me les paieras que devant témoins”, plus tard il réclame le paiement, et l’autre dit avoir payé, il est condamné, car il devant payer devant témoins).",
+ "Si le demandeur réclame une livre (litra) d’or, et l’autre avoue devoir une livre d’argent, il est acquitté sans serment; mais si le demandeur réclame un dinar d’or, et l’autre avoue devoir un dinar d’argent, un tressis (triple as), ou un pondion, ou une prouta, il prêtera serment, car la demande et l’aveu portent tous les deux sur une pièce de monnaie. Si le demandeur réclame une mesure de blé, et le défendeur avoue la moitié de cette mesure de pois, il est acquitté; mais si le demandeur réclame une mesure de fruits, et l’autre avoue de cette mesure de pois, il prêtera serment; car les pois sont compris comme des fruits. Si le demandeur réclame du froment, et le défendeur avoue devoir de l’orge, il est acquitté sans serment; R. Gamliel le condamne à prêter serment. Si le demandeur réclame des cruches d’huile, et le défendeur avoue devoir des cruches vides, Admon le condamne à prêter serment, puisqu’il a avoué devoir une partie de ce que l’autre réclame; mais les autres docteurs disent qu’il est acquitté, parce que l’aveu et la réclamation ne portent pas sur la même chose.R. Gamliel dit qu’Admon à raison. Si le demandeur réclame du mobilier et des terrains, et le défendeur avoue devoir du mobilier et nie les terrains, ou bien il avoue les terrains et nie le mobilier, il est acquitté sans serment; s’il avoue une partie des terrains, il est également acquitté sans serment; mais s’il avoue une partie du mobilier, il est obligé de prêter serment qu’il ne doit ni l’autre partie du mobilier, ni les terrains; car du moment qu’il a déjà l’obligation de prêter serment pour le mobilier, il doit en même temps le prêter pour les immeubles.",
+ "On n’est pas obligé de prêter serment pour la réclamation d’un sourd-muet, ou d’un fou, ou d’un mineur. On n’oblige pas un mineur à prêter serment; mais on prête serment pour un mineur et pour les choses sacrées.",
+ "On ne prête pas serment pour des esclaves, ni pour des actes, ni pour des immeubles, ni pour des choses sacrées. Pour toutes ces choses, si elles sont volées, le voleur ne paie pas l’amende prescrite, soit le double, soit le quadruple, ou le quintuple (Ex 21, 37) et (Ex 22, 6); de même pour toutes ces choses, celui qui les garde sans salaire ne prête pas serment, et celui qui les garde pour salaire, n’est pas obligé de payer (en cas de perte). R. Simon dit: s’il s’agit des choses sacrées, que celui qui les a offertes est obligé de remplacer si elles disparaissent, on prête serment; au cas contraire, on est dispensé.",
+ "R. Meir dit: Il y a des choses qui sont dans la terre et qui ne sont pas considérées comme des immeubles; c’est contraire à l’avis des autres docteurs. Ainsi, un homme dit à un autre qu’il lui a livré dix vignes pleines, et l’autre dit qu’il n’y en avait que cinq; il doit prêter serment selon R. Meir. Les autres docteurs, au contraire, admettent que tout ce qui est attaché à la terre est considéré comme un immeuble. On ne prête serment que si la réclamation est précise par la mesure, le poids ou le nombre; ainsi, un homme dit à un autre qu’il lui a livré une maison pleine d’objets, ou une bourse pleine d’argent, et l’autre dit ne rien savoir de ce qu’il y avait auparavant dans la maison ou dans la bourse, et que le demandeur prenne ce qui s’y trouve encore, il est acquitté sans serment; mais si le demandeur dit que la maison était remplie jusqu’au toit et l’autre dit jusqu’à la fenêtre, il doit prêter serment.",
+ "Un homme a prêté à un autre de l’argent sur un gage, et le gage est perdu. Le créancier dit alors qu’il a prêté un selà, et que le gage ne valait qu’un sicle; le débiteur dit que le gage valait un selà, et que par conséquent il ne lui doit rien; dans ce cas, il n’y a pas de serment dû. Mais si le créancier dit qu’il a prêter un selà et que le gage ne valait qu’un sicle, mais le débiteur dit que le gage valait 3 dinars, de sorte qu’il ne lui doit qu’un dinar, il y a serment. Si le débiteur dit avoir emprunté un selà, et que le gage valait 2 selà, mais le créancier dit que le gage n’en valait qu’un, qu’en conséquence il ne doit rien au débiteur, il n'y a pas de serment. Mais si le débiteur dit qu’il a emprunté un selà et que le gage en valait deux, et le créancier dit qu’il ne valait que 5 dinars, et que par conséquent il ne doit au débiteur qu’un dinar, le serment est dû. Qui prête serment? Celui qui a pris le gage; car si l’autre prêtait serment, il serait à craindre que celui-ci ne montre ensuite le gage pour convaincre son adversaire de faux (et le faire frapper d’incapacité judiciaire)."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Tous les serments imposés par la loi biblique se prêtent par les défendeurs pour ne pas payer. Dans les cas suivants, les docteurs ont institué des serments à prêter pour se faire payer; ce sont: l’ouvrier qui travaille pour un salaire, celui auquel on a enlevé ce qui lui appartient, le blessé, celui dont l’adversaire est suspect de prêter un faux serment, le boutiquier selon son livre. L’ouvrier qui travaille pour un salaire dit à celui qui a commandé l’ouvrage: “paie-moi mon travail”: l’autre dit avoir payé, et l’ouvrier dit que non; l’ouvrier prêtera alors serment pour se faire payer. Selon R. Juda, seulement en cas d’aveu partiel, l’ouvrier peut le prêter pour se faire payer. Par exemple, l’ouvrier réclame 50 dinars de salaire; le défenseur dit qu’il a payé un dinar d’or (25 dinars d’argent), et ne veut payer par conséquent que 25.",
+ "Celui auquel on a enlevé ce qui lui appartient, est dans la même catégorie. Par exemple, il y a des témoins attestant qu’un homme est entré dans la maison de son débiteur pour y faire des saisies sans autorisation; le débiteur dit: “tu as pris mes effets”, et l’autre dit n’avoir rien pris; le propriétaire prêtera serment qu’on lui a enlevé ses effets, pour se les faire payer. R. Juda dit: ici, comme dans le cas de l’ouvrier, il ne peut se faire payer en prêtant serment que si son adversaire avoue devoir une partie de la réclamation, par exemple si le propriétaire réclame deux effets, et le défendeur avoue en avoir pris un.",
+ "De même le blessé; p. ex., s’il y a des témoins qu’un homme était bien portant en entrant chez quelqu’un, et en est sorti blessé; cet homme dit à l’autre: “c’est toi qui m’as blessé”, et l’autre le nie. Le blessé prêtera serment pour se faire payer à raison de sa blessure. R. Juda met encore ici la condition d’un aveu partiel du défendeur; p. ex., le blessé dit: “c’est toi qui m’as fait les deux blessures”, et l’autre dit qu’il n’en a fait qu’une.",
+ "Celui dont l’adversaire est suspect de prêter un faux serment en ce cas, soit que celui qui devrait prêter un serment ait été convaincu de faux, soit qu’il ait été frappé d’incapacité judiciaire, est comme les joueurs de cubes, les prêteurs à usure, ceux qui font des paris en faisant voler des pigeons, ou ceux qui trafiquent des produits de la 7e année: si l’une de ces personnes a un procès dans lequel elle devrait prêter serment pour être acquittée, on défère le serment à la partie adverse qui le prêtera pour se faire payer. Si les deux parties sont suspectes, le serment retourne où il était. C’est l’opinion de R. Josué. R. Meir dit que la somme de la réclamation est partagée entre les deux parties.",
+ "Enfin, le boutiquier d’après son livre. Ainsi, il ne s’agit pas là du cas où le boutiquier dit à quelqu’un: “tu me dois 200 zouz, c’est inscrit dans mon livre”; mais un individu dit au boutiquier: “donne à mon fils deux mesures de froment; ou donne à mes ouvriers pour un sela (4 dinars) des maoth (menue monnaie); le boutiquier prétend les avoir donnés, et il réclame de l’individu le paiement, le fils ou les ouvriers disent n’avoir rien reçu, et ils réclament aussi du même individu ce qu’il leur devait. Dans ce cas, le boutiquier prête serment qu’il a donné les maoth, pour se les faire payer, et les ouvriers prêtent serment qu’ils n’ont rien reçu pour se faire payer à leur tour. Mais Ben-Nanos dit: Comment peut-on laisser prêter deux serments contradictoires, dont un sera nécessairement faux? Aussi, fut-il que le boutiquier et les ouvriers se fassent payer sans serment.",
+ "Un homme dit à un boutiquier: “donne-moi des fruits pour un dinar”, celui-ci donne les fruits, puis il réclame le dinar mais l’autre répond: “Je te l’ai donné et tu l’as mis dans ta bourse”, Mappula. Dans ce cas, l’acheteur prêtera serment qu’il a donné le dinar (et il est acquitté). Si au contraire, l’homme a donné le dinar et il réclame les fruits, mais le boutiquier dit: “Je te les ai donnés, et tu les as portés chez toi”; c’est le boutiquier qui prêtera serment pour être acquitté. R. Juda dit: Celui qui a les fruits à la haute main. Un homme dit à un changeur: “donne-moi des maoths pour un dinar”; celui-ci les lui donne, il réclame le dinar, l’autre dit: “Je te l’ai donné, et tu l’as mis dans ta bourse”; dans ce cas, l’homme prêtera serment qu’il a donné le dinar pour être acquitté. Si ayant donné le dinar réellement il réclame les maoths, et que le changeur dise: “Je te les ai données, et tu les as mises dans ta bourse”, alors le changeur prêtera serment qu’il les a données pour être acquitté. R. Juda dit: les changeurs n’ont pas l’habitude de donner la monnaie sans recevoir d’abord le dinar.",
+ "On a dit: Si la femme divorcée avoue que le mari lui a payé une partie du douaire, et le mari dit l’avoir payé entièrement, elle prêtera serment pour se faire payer le reste. Si un seul témoin atteste que le douaire a été payé, la femme prêtera serment qu’elle n’a pas été payée, puis sera payée. Si le mari a vendu les biens, la femme ne peut se faire payer des terrains vendus qu’après avoir prêté le serment qu’elle n’a pas été payée. Si elle est veuve et qu’elle veuille se faire payer sur les biens des orphelins, elle doit à cet effet prêter serment. Enfin, elle doit encore prêter serment, si le mari divorcé avec elle est à l’étranger, et qu’elle veuille se faire payer en son absence. Comme la femme doit prêter serment, si elle veut se faire payer des orphelins, les héritiers qui réclament pour le défunt ne peuvent pas non plus se faire payer (des orphelins) qu’après avoir prêté serment, en disant: “nous jurons que notre père ne nous a rien ordonné à ce sujet, il ne nous a pas dit que l’acte présenté ait été payé, et que nous n’avons trouvé, dans les papiers de notre père, aucun écrit qui indiquerait le paiement de la dette. R. Yohanan b. Broqah dit: quand même le fils serait né après la mort de son père, il prête serment qu’il n’a trouvé aucun papier constatant que la dette ait été payée, pour se faire payer la somme indiquée dans l’acte. R. Simon b. Gamliel dit: s’il y a des témoins que le père a dit avant la mort: “cet acte n’est pas payé”, le fils peut se faire payer sans serment.",
+ "Sont condamnés à prêter serment sur des réclamations douteuses les associés, les fermiers, les tuteurs, les intendants, la femme qui dirige le commerce de la maison, le fils de la maison (qui en dirige le commerce pour lui et pour ses frères après la mort de leur père). Si l’un de ces individus demande à son adversaire: “Qu’est ce que tu réclames?”, et l’autre répond: “Je n’ai aucune réclamation déterminée, mais je veux que tu prêtes serment d’avoir scrupuleusement géré le commerce” (sans chercher à faire quelques profits à mes dépens), il doit prêter le serment exigé. Si les associés et les fermiers ont déjà fait leur partage sans qu’on ait exigé d’eux le serment, on ne peut plus venir plus tard le leur imposer. Mais, si l’un de ces individus est obligé de prêter serment dans un autre procès qu’il a avec son adversaire, celui-ci peut exiger que le serment soit prêté en même temps sur sa gérance, du temps où il était associé au fermier. Enfin la septième année arrête le serment."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Il y a quatre catégories de gardiens; le gardien gratuit, celui qui emprunte un objet pour en user; le garde salarié, celui qui loue un objet (pour soi). De ces quatre, le gardien gratuit n’a qu’à jurer s’il est défendeur. Celui qui loue un objet (ayant la possibilité complète) doit payer pour tout accident. Enfin, celui qui garde pour un salaire et celui qui loue doivent payer, si l’animal ou l’objet s’est perdu ou été volé; mais si l’animal s’est cassé une patte, ou s’il a été enlevé par des ennemis, ou s’il est mort, le gardien est acquitté en prêtant serment (qu’il n’est pas la cause de l’accident et qu’il n’a pas pu l’empêcher).",
+ "Le propriétaire dit au gardien gratuit: “Où est mon bœuf”; et celui-ci répond que l’animal est mort, tandis qu’en réalité il s’est brisé un membre, ou il a été enlevé par un ennemi, ou volé, ou perdu; ou bien si le gardien répond que l’animal s’est brisé un membre, au lieu qu’il est mort, ou a été enlevé, ou volé, ou perdu; ou bien si le gardien répond que l’animal a été enlevé, au lieu qu’il est mort, ou s’est brisé un membre, ou a été volé, ou perdu; ou bien si le gardien dit que l’animal a été volé, au lieu qu’il est mort, ou s’est brisé un membre, ou a été enlevé, ou perdu; ou bien si le gardien dit que l’animal est perdu, ou qu’il est mort, ou s’est brisé, ou a été enlevé, ou volé. Le propriétaire lui dit: “je te conjure”, et celui-ci répond: Amen; ce dernier est acquitté.",
+ "Le propriétaire demande au gardien: “Où est mon bœuf”?, et celui-ci répond: “je ne sais ce que tu dis”, tandis que l’animal est mort, ou s’est brisé un membre, ou a été enlevé, ou a été volé, ou perdu; sur quoi, le premier dit: “Je te conjure”, et le gardien répliqua: Amen; celui-ci est acquitté. Si, sur la même question posée, il répond que l’animal est perdu, et à l’objurgation qui lui est faite par le propriétaire il réplique: Amen, tandis que des témoins attestent qu’il l’a consommé, il devra payer le montant. S’il l’avoue spontanément, il devra payer, outre le capital, 1/5 en sus pour amende, et offrir le sacrifice de péché. Si sur la même question posée il répond que la bête a été volée, et à la suite de l’objurgation faite par le propriétaire, il réplique: Amen, tandis que des témoins attestent qu’il a volé lui-même l’animal, il devra payer le double du prix (comme voleur); s’il l’avoue spontanément, il devra payer, outre le capital, 1/5 en sus, et un sacrifice de péché.",
+ "Si quelqu’un dit à un individu dans la rue: “Où est mon bœuf que tu as volé”?, et l’interpellé nie le vol, tandis que des témoins attestent qu’il est le voleur, l’accusé paiera le double de la valeur. S’il l’a égorgé et vendu, il paiera le quadruple ou le quintuple du prix. Mais si, même en voyant arriver les témoins à sa charge, il avoue aussitôt le vol, en ajoutant n’avoir ni égorgé ni vendu l’animal, il paiera le montant seulement (sans amende).",
+ "Le propriétaire dit à celui qui a loué l’animal: “Où est mon bœuf”?, et l’autre répond que l’animal est mort, au lieu que celui-ci s’est brisé un membre, ou a été enlevé, ou volé, ou perdu; ou bien si le loueur dit que l’animal est brisé, au lieu qu’il est mort, ou a été enlevé, ou volé, ou perdu; ou bien si le loueur dit que l’animal a été enlevé, au lieu qu’il est mort, ou brisé, ou volé, ou perdu; ou bien si la déclaration dit “volé”, au lieu de: mort, ou brisé, ou enlevé, ou perdu; ou bien si l’animal est déclaré perdu, au lieu qu’il est mort, ou brisé, ou enlevé, ou volé; sur quoi le propriétaire dit au loueur: “Je te conjure”, et celui-ci y consent en disant: Amen, il est absous.",
+ "Le propriétaire demande au loueur: “où est mon bœuf”?, et celui-ci répond: “je ne sais ce que tu dis”, tandis que l’animal est mort, ou s’est brisé un membre, ou a été enlevé, ou volé, ou perdu; sur quoi le propriétaire dit: “je te conjure”, et le loueur réplique: Amen, il est condamnable. Le propriétaire dit au gardien salarié ou au locataire de l’animal: “Où est mon bœuf”?, et celui-ci répond que l’animal est mort, tandis qu’il est brisé, ou enlevé; ou si l’animal est déclaré brisé, au lieu de: mort, ou enlevé; ou bien s’il est déclaré enlevé, au lieu de mort ou brisé; ou s’il est déclaré volé, au lieu de perdu; ou bien s’il est déclaré perdu, au lieu de volé; sur quoi, le propriétaire conjure l’interpellé, qui réplique: Amen; celui-ci est absous. De même, si l’animal est déclaré mort, ou brisé, ou enlevé, au lieu d’être en réalité volé ou perdu, sur quoi, le propriétaire conjure l’interpellé, qui réplique: Amen; ce dernier est coupable si l’animal est déclaré perdu ou volé, au lieu qu’il est mort, ou brisé, ou enlevé; sur quoi le propriétaire conjure l’interpellé, qui réplique: Amen; ce dernier est absous. Voici la règle: Celui qui jure faux, en déplaçant seulement une obligation contre une autre semblable, ou une dispense de remboursement contre une autre dispense, ou une dispense contre une obligation, est absous; mais s’il modifie l’obligation en dispense (entraînant un dommage), il est coupable. —C’est que le serment qui a pour suite de ménager l’intérêt du défendeur entraîne sa culpabilité; tandis que le serment fait à son préjudice motive l’absolution."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c52dd29401051702a3ff4493f337996487a26ef6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Shevuot",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+ "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "CC0",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה שבועות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [],
+ [
+ "Awareness of impurity is of two [types], which are [really] four; If one became impure and was aware, and then forgot the impurity, but remembered the sanctified [food]; or if one forgot [that the food was] sanctified, but remembered the impurity; or if one forgot this or that, and ate the sanctified [food] and was not aware, and after he ate, was aware, this one [is obligated to] a Oleh veYored [a sliding-scale sin-offering where the economic status of the individual determines whether he brings an animal, a bird, or flour]. If one became impure and was aware, and then forgot the impurity, but remembered the Temple; or if one forgot the Temple, but remembered the impurity; or if one forgot this or that, entered the Temple and was not aware, and after he exited, was aware, one [is obligated to] a oleh veyored.",
+ "[This is the case for] the one who enters the temple courtyard and the one who enters the addition to the temple courtyard, for we do not add to the City or to the temple courtyards except [upon agreement] by the king , by prophet, and by the urim vetumim [scrolls in the High Priest's breastplate], by Sanhedrin [highest court, charged with deciding cases and appeals that had national significance. It was comprised of 71 scholars who had received the full traditional rabbinical ordination, and its decisions fixed Jewish practice for subsequent generations.] of seventy-one [judges], with two thanksgiving offerings, and by song. The court walks [around the area being added] and two thanksgiving offerings after them, and all of Israel after them. The inner [offering] was eaten, and the outer [offering] was burned. And any [addition] that was not made with all of these, the one who enters there, he is not liable.",
+ "He who became impure in the temple courtyard and forgot the impurity, but remembered the Temple; or if one forgot the Temple, but remembered the impurity; or if one forgot either one, and prostrated himself or lingered the time it takes to prostrate, or came [left the temple] to it by the long [route], he is liable, by the shortest [route], he is exempt. This is the positive commandment of the Temple, that they are not liable for. ",
+ "What is the positive commandment regarding a niddah [menstruating woman] that one would be liable for? The one who was having relations with a clean woman, and she said to him, \"I have become unclean,\" and he withdrew immediately, he is liable, because his leaving is as enjoyable for him as is his entering. ",
+ "Rabbi Eliezer says: \"The creeping thing,\", \" and it was forgotten by him,\" (Vayikra 5:2-3) regarding forgetting the creeping thing, one is liable, but one is not liable regarding forgetting the Temple. Rabbi Akiva says: \"it being hidden from him that he is unclean\" regarding forgetting the impurity, one is liable, but one is not liable regarding forgetting the Temple. Rabbi Yishma'el says: \"It is forgotten, it is forgotten\" [is said] two times, to make one liable for forgetting the impurity and for forgetting the Temple."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Oaths are of two [types], which are [really] four. An oath that [I will] eat or [will] not eat; that I ate or that I did not eat. An oath that [I will not] eat, and eats a minute amount, he is liable, these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. They [the Sages] said to Rabbi Akiva, where do we find that one who eats a minute amount, he is liable, that this one is liable? Rabbi Akiva said to them: And where do we find that he who speaks and brings a sacrifice, that this one who speaks and brings a sacrifice? An oath that [I will] not eat, and he ate and drank, is only liable once, an oath that [I will] not eat and I will not drink, and ate and drank, he is liable twice. ",
+ "An oath that [I will] not eat, and eats wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread is only liable once. An oath that [I will] not eat wheat bread, barley bread, and spelt bread, and he ate, he is liable for each one. ",
+ "An oath that I will not drink, and he drank many liquids, he is only liable once, an oath that I will not drink wine, oil, and honey, and he drank, he is liable for each one. ",
+ "An oath that [I will] not eat, and ate food that is not fit for consumption, or drank liquids that is not fit for drinking, he is exempt. An oath that [I will] not eat, and ate nevelot [improperly slaughtered animals] or tereifot [mortally wounded animals], shekatsim [unclean animals] or remasim [creeping things], he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts. He said, my spouse's benefits are forbidden to me if I ate today, and one ate nevelot or tereifot, shekatsim or remasim, that person's spouse is prohibited. ",
+ "[This is the case for] things concerning oneself, or things concerning others, or things that have in them substance, or of things that do not have in them substance. How so? If he said an oath that I will give to so-and-so or that I will not give ; that I gave or that I did not give; that I will sleep or that I will not sleep; that I did sleep or that I did not sleep; that I will throw a pebble into the sea or that I will not throw; that I threw or that I did not throw. Rabbi Yishma'el says: One is only liable if [his oath] refers the future as the verse states : “To do bad or to do good.” (Vayikra 5:4) Rabbi Akiva said to him [Rabbi Yishma'el]: If so, I can only know about things that concern doing evil and doing good, things that do not concern doing evil and doing good, from where [do we know this]? He said to him: It is included from the verse. He said to him: If the verse includes that, the verse includes this [too]. ",
+ "He swore to violate a mitzvah and he did not violate, he is exempt, to fulfill [it] and he did not fulfill [it], he is exempt. It would have been logical that one is liable, like according to Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira said: What if it is optional, that it was not sworn regarding it from Mount Sinai, he is liable for it, a mitzvah that was sworn about it from Mount Sinai, is it not logical that he would be liable for it? They said to him: No! If you say that for an optional oath, it is because [Scripture] made negative like them [positive], you could say that for an oath of a mitzvah, since [Scripture] made negative equal to them [positive], because if he swore to violate, and did not violate [it], he is exempt. ",
+ "An oath that [I will] not eat this loaf, an oath that [I will] not eat it, an oath that [I will] not eat it, and he ate, he is only liable once. This is an oath of declaration, for which one is liable for its intentional transgression lashes, and for its unintentional transgression an offering of an Oleh veYored [a sliding-scale Chattat offering where the economic status of the individual determines whether he brings an animal, a bird, or flour]. For a vain oath, they are liable for its intentional transgression lashes, and for an unintentional act, he is exempt.",
+ "What is a vain oath? He swore to contravene something than what is known to all people, he said of a pillar of stone that it is of gold, or of a man that he is a woman, or of a woman that she is a man, he swore of a thing that is impossible, if I did not see a camel that is flying in the air, or if I did not see a snake like a beam of an olive press. [Another example], If he said to witnesses, come and testify for me, [and they replied] an oath that we will not testify for you. He swore to violate a mitsvah, not to make a sukkah, not to take a lulav, or not to put on tefillin, this is a vain oath, and they are liable for its intentional transgression with lashes, if it was an unintentional, he is exempt.",
+ "An oath that [I will] eat this loaf, an oath that [I will] not eat it, the first is an oath of declaration, and the second is a vain oath. If he eats it, he transgresses the vain oath, if he does not eat it, he transgresses the oath of declaration.",
+ "An oath of declaration applies to both men and women, to relatives and non-relatives, by those fit and those unfit, before the court or not before the court, by oneself, and they are liable for for an intentional [sin punishable by] lashes and an unintentional act an offering of an oleh veyored. ",
+ "A vain oath can be made by men and women, by non-relatives and relatives, by those fit and those not fit, before the court or not before the court, by oneself, and they are liable for for an intentional [sin punished by] lashes but for unintentional act, he is exempt. For this one and this one [for either kind of oath], if he was [commanded] to swear by others, he is liable. How so? If he said, I did not eat today or I did not put on tefillin today, [and his friend said] I command you to swear, and he said, Amen [I agree], he is liable. "
+ ],
+ [
+ "The oath of testimony applies to men but not to women, to relatives and non- relatives, and by those fit but not by those unfit. It only applies to those who are fit to testify, whether before a court or not before a court, by oneself, and by others. They [the witnesses] are not liable unless they deny it [their knowledge] before a court, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: whether it was by oneself or by others, they are not liable unless they deny it before a court.",
+ "And they are liable for an intentional transgression of the oath and for its unintentional transgression with an intentional denial of the testimony, but they are not liable for an unintentional act. What are they liable for in an intentional oath? An offering of an Oleh veYored [a sliding-scale Chattat offering where the economic status of the individual determines whether he brings an animal, a bird, or flour].",
+ "How is an oath of testimony, [is it done]? If one said to two, come and testify for me, [and they answered] \"[We take] an oath that we do not know testimony for you. Or they say to him: \"We do not know testimony for you\", [he responds], I make you swear, and they said, Amen, agreed, they are liable. If he made them swear five times outside the court, and they come to the court and admitted, they are exempt, if they deny, they are liable for each one. If he made them swear five times before the court, and they deny, they are only liable for one. Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason? Since they cannot retract and admit. ",
+ "If the two [witnesses] denied knowledge at the same time, the two of them are liable, one after the other, the first is liable, the second is exempt. If one denied and one admitted, the one who denies is liable. If there were two pairs of witnesses, if the first denied, and after the second denied, the two of them are liable, because the testimony could be established by the two of them. ",
+ "I make you swear, that if you do not come and testify for me that I have in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, a loan, a stolen object, or a lost object, [and they swear:] An oath that we do not know testimony for you, they are only liable once. An oath that we do not know that you have in the possession of so-and-so a deposit, a loan, a stolen object, or a lost object, they are liable for each one. I make you swear that if you come and testify for me that I have in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt”, [and they swear:] an oath that we do not know testimony for you, they are only liable once. An oath that we do not know testimony for you that you have in the possession of so-and-so a deposit of wheat, barley, and spelt, they are liable for each one. ",
+ "I make you swear, that if you do not come and testify for me that I have in the possession of so-and-so damages and half damages, double payment, four or five payment; that so-and-so raped my daughter or seduced my daughter; that my son struck me; or that my neighbor injured me or set fire to my stack of grain on the Day of Atonement, they are liable. ",
+ "I make you swear, that if you do not come and testify for me that I am a priest, that I am a Levite, that I am not the son of a divorced woman, or that I am not the son of a chalutsah [widow of a childless man released from the obligation of Levirate marriage by a ceremony performed by her brother-in-law]; that so-and-so is a priest, that so-and-so is a Levite, that he is not a son of a divorced woman, or that he is not the son of a chalutsah; that so-and-so raped his daughter or seduced his daughter; that my son injured me; that my neighbor injured me or set fire to my stack of grain on Shabbat, they are exempt. ",
+ "I make you swear, that if you do not come and testify for me that so-and-sosaid he would give me two hundred zuz [a silver coin] and he did not give it to me, they are exempt, because they are only liable regarding a claim of money like a deposit.",
+ "I make you swear, that when you can inform me of testimony that you will come and testify for me, they are exempt, because the oath of testimony comes first.",
+ "If he stood in a synagogue and said, I make you swear that if you know testimony for me, that you will come and testify for me, they are exempt, unless he will intend for them.",
+ "If one said to two, I make you swear, so-and-so and so-and-so, that if you know any testimony for me that you will come and testify for me an oath that we do not know testimony for you, and they did know testimony for him, [known by] a witness from the mouth of another witness or if one of them was a relative or invalid [witness], they are exempt.",
+ "If one sent by the hand of his servant, or if the defendant said to them, I make you swear that if you know any testimony for him that you will come and testify for him, they are exempt, unless they hear this from the mouth of the claimant.",
+ "I make you swear, I command you, I forbid you, these are liable. By the heavens and the earth, these are exempt. With Alef, Dalet, with Yud, Hey, with Shaddai, with God's hosts, with the Gracious and Merciful one, with Slow to Anger and Abundantly Kind, and with all euphemisms, these are liable. The one who curses with any of these, is liable, these are the words of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages exempt. The one who curses his father or mother with any of these, is liable, these are the words of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages exempt. The one who curses oneself or one's fellow with any of these, transgresses a negative commandment. God will strike you, and thus God will strike you, this is the written curse in the Torah. \"[God will] not smite you\", \"[God] will bless you\", \"[God] will do well by you\", (Devarim 28:22-35) Rabbi Meir makes him liable, and the Sages exempt."
+ ],
+ [
+ "The oath of a deposit can be made by men and women, by non-relatives and by relatives, by those fit and by unfit, before a court or not before a court, by oneself and by others, he is not not liable until he denies it in court, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say, whether it was by oneself or by others, since he denied it, he is liable. He is liable for an intentional violation of an oath and for its unintentional violation [along] with an intentional [denial] of the deposit, but he is not liable for the unintentional violation alone. What is he liable for the intentional violation? An asham [guilt offering] of silver [worth at least two] shekalim[coins]. ",
+ "An oath of deposit, how [is it done]? He said to him, give me my deposit that you have, [the other person responds with] an oath that I do not have [what is] yours. Or he said to him, I have nothing of yours, [and he responds], I make you swear, and he said, Amen agreed, he is liable. If he caused him to swear five times, in front of a court or not in front of a court, and he denied it, he is liable for each one. Rabbi Shimon said, what is the reason? Because he is able to retract and admit.",
+ "If five [people] claimed against him, who said to him, give us our deposit that you have, [he responds with] an oath that I have nothing of yours, he is only liable once, an oath that I do not have [what is] yours, and not yours, and not yours, then he is liable for each one. Rabbi Eliezer says: until he says an oath [I swear] on the last one. Rabbi Shimon says: Until he says an oath [I swear] to each one. [If a person says] Give me my deposit or loan, stolen item, or lost item that you have, [he responds with] an oath that I do not have anything of yours, he is only liable once. An oath that I do not have your deposit, loan, stolen item, or lost item, he is liable for each one. Give me wheat, barley, and rye that is mine that you have, [he responds with] an oath that I do not have anything of yours. He is only liable once. An oath that I do not have your wheat, barley, or rye, he is liable for each one. Rabbi Meir says, even if he said, a wheat grain, a barley grain, or a rye grain, he is liable for each one.",
+ "You raped or seduced my daughter, and he says, I did not rape or I did not seduce, [the other says] I make you swear, and he said, Amen, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts, because one does not pay a fine by one's own admission. They [the Sages] said to him, even though one does not pay a fine by by his own admission, one pays for shame and impairment by his own admission. ",
+ "You stole my ox, and he says, I did not steal it, [he says], I make you swear, and he said, Amen, he is liable. I stole, but I did not butcher or I did not sell, [he says] I make you swear, and he said, Amen, he is exempt. Your ox killed my ox, and he says, it did not kill, [he says] I make you swear, and he said,Amen, he is liable. Your ox killed my slave, and he says, it did not kill, [he says] I make you swear, and he said, Amen, he is exempt. You injured me, you wounded me, and he says, I did not injure you or I did not wound you, [he says] I make you swear, and he said,Amen, he is liable. If his slave said to him, you knocked out my tooth or you blinded my eye, and he says, I did not knock [it] out or I did not blind [you], [he says] I make you swear, and he said, Amen, he is exempt. This is the general rule, any one who pays by his own admission is liable, but one who does not pay by his own admission, he is exempt. "
+ ],
+ [
+ "The oath of the judges, [is for] a claim of two silver [coins], and an admission with the value of a perutah [a small coin], and if the admission is not of the same type [of item] as the claim, he is exempt. How so? You have two silver coins of mine, [and one replies,] I only have a perutah of yours, he is exempt. You have two silver coins and a perutah of mine, [and one replies,] I only have a perutah of yours, he is liable. You have a maneh [one hundred zuz] of mine, [and one replies,] I do not have anything of yours, he is exempt. You have a maneh of mine [and one replies,] I only have fifty dinar [half a maneh], he is liable. You have a maneh of my father [and one replies,] I only have fifty dinar, he is exempt, because it is like returning a lost object. ",
+ "You have a maneh of mine, he said to him before witnesses, yes, and the next day he said to him, give it to me, [and he replies] I gave it to you, he is exempt. I do not have anything of yours, he is liable. You have a maneh of mine, he said to him, yes, do not give it to me,only in front of witnesses, the next day, he said to him, give it to me, [and he replies] I gave it to you, he is liable, because he needs to give it to him before witnesses. ",
+ "You have a litra [pound] of gold of mine, [and he replies] I only have a litra of silver of yours, he is exempt. You have a dinar of gold of mine, [and he replies] I only have dinar of silver of yours or a terisit [eight perutah], a pundion [sixteen perutah], or a perutah of yours, he is liable, because all are a type of single coin. You have a kor of grain of mine, [and he re replies] I only have a letekh [half kor] of beans of yours, he is exempt. You have a kor of fruit of mine [and one replies] I only have a letekh of beans of yours, he is liable, because beans are in the category of fruit. If they claimed wheat, and one admitted to him about barley, he is exempt, but Rabban Gamliel makes liable. The one who claims to his fellow about jugs of oil, and admitted to him about vessels, Admon says, since he admitted to him some of the [same] type of claim, he should swear, but the Sages say, the admission is not of the [same] type as the claim. Rabban Gamliel said, I see the words of Admon. If they claimed vessels and land, and one admitted to vessels but denied land or to land but denied vessels, he is exempt. He admitted to some of the lands he is exempt, but some of the vessels, he is liable, because property that cannot be mortgaged join with property that can be mortgaged to swear upon them. ",
+ "We do not swear on the claim of a deaf-mute, a shoteh, or a minor, and one does not make a minor swear, but we swear against a minor or sanctified objects. ",
+ "And these are the things which one does not swear upon, slaves, documents, lands, and sanctified objects. They are not subject to double penalty nor a penalty of fourfold or fivefold. An unpaid guardian does not swear, a paid guardian does not pay. Rabbi Shimon says, for sacrifices for which one is responsible for them [their replacement], we swear upon them, but [for those] that he is not responsible for them, we do not swear upon them.",
+ "Rabbi Meir says, there are things that are in [like] land and they are not like land, but the Sages do not agree with him. How so? I transferred to you ten laden vines, and this one says, there are only five, Rabbi Meir makes him liable [for an] oath, but the Sages say, anything attached to the ground, it is like the ground. They only swear on a thing [determined] by measure, weight or by number. How so? I transferred to you a full house or I transferred to you a full pouch, and this one says, I do not know, but take whatever you left, he is exempt. This one says, [the produce reached] until the overhang, and this one says, until the window, he is liable. ",
+ "The one who loans to his fellow on collateral, and he lost the collateral, and he said to him, I lent you a sela [a silver coin] on it, and it was worth a shekel [half a sela], and this one says, no, you lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela, he is exempt. I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a shekel, and this one says, no, you lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three dinarim [three-fourths a sela], he is liable. You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two, and this one says, no, I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela, he is exempt. You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two, and this one says, no, I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five dinarim, he is liable. And who swears? The one in whose possession the deposit is, lest he [the borrower] swear and this one [the lender] will take out [present] the deposit. "
+ ],
+ [
+ "All who [need to] swear by Biblical decree, swear and do not pay. The following swear and receive, the hired laborer, the victim of theft, the wounded person, if the opponent is suspected of an oath [of swearing falsely], and the shopkeeper concerning his journal. The hired laborer, how so [what are the circumstances]? If one said to him, give me my wage that is mine that you have, and he says, I gave [it], and this one says, I did not receive it, he swears and receives. Rabbi Yehudah says, [there is no oath] until there is a partial admission. How so? If he said to him, give me my wage of fifty dinar that is mine that you have, and he says, you already received a golden dinar [worth 25 dinar].",
+ "The victim of theft, how so[do they collect and swear]? If they had testified against him that he entered his [his debtor's] house, for his pledge without permission, he says, you took a vessel, and he says, I did not take [it], he swears and receives. Rabbi Yehudah says, [there is no oath] until there is a partial admission. How so? If he said to him, you took two vessels, and he says, I only took one. ",
+ "The wounded person, how so? If they had testified that he entered his care whole and left wounded, and he said to him, you wounded me, and he says, I did not wound [you], he swears and receives. Rabbi Yehudah says, [there is no oath] until there is a partial admission, how so? If he said to him, you wounded me twice, and this one says, I only wounded you once. ",
+ "If the opponent is suspected of oath [swearing falsely], how so? Whether an oath of testimony, or an oath of deposit, and even a vain oath. If one of them was a dice-player, or one who loans on interest, or a racer of doves, or a merchant of produce of the Sabbatical year, the opponent swears and receives. If two of them are suspected, the oath returns to its place, these are the words of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Meir says, they should divide. ",
+ "The shopkeeper on his journal, how so? He should not say to him, it was written on my journal, that you are liable to me two hundred zuz [a silver coin], rather he said to him, give to my child se'atayim [each se'ah is six kav] of wheat, or give to my laborer a sela [worth four dinar] of coins, and he says, I gave [it], and they say, we did not receive, he swears and receives, and they swear and receive. Ben Nanas said, how do they both come and take a vain oath. Rather he receives without an oath, and they receive without an oath.",
+ "He said to the shopkeeper, give me fruit for [the value of] a dinar, and he gave it to him, he said to him, give me the dinar, he said to him, he gave it to him, and he placed it in the till, the employer should swear. If he gave him the dinar, he said to him, give me the fruit, he said to him, I gave them to you, and you carried them into your house, the shopkeeper should swear. Rabbi Yehudah says, the one who has the fruit, he has the upper hand. If he said to the money- changer, give me a dinar of coins, and he gave [it] to him, he said to him, give me the dinar, he said to him, I gave it to you and you placed it in the till, the employer should swear. If he gave him the dinar, he said to him, give me the coins, he said to him, I gave it to you, and you threw them into your pouch, the money changer should swear. Rabbi Yehudah says, it is not the way of the money changer to give an issar [a coin worth eight perutah until he takes his dinar.",
+ "Just as they said, the one who impairs [the value of] her ketubah [marriage contract] it can only be paid by oath, and one witness testifies that it has been paid, it can only be paid by oath, from mortgaged property or from property of orphans, it can only be paid by oath, and she who collects [her ketubah] not in the presence[ of her husband], it can only be paid by oath. So too orphans, they can only be paid by oath, an oath that our father did not advise us, an oath that our father has not said anything to us, and we did not find [anything] among the documents of father, that this document is paid. Rabbi Yochanan ben Berokah says, even the son who was born after the death of the father, swears and receives. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, if there are witnesses, that the father said at the time of his death, this document has not been paid, he receives without an oath.",
+ "And these swear without a claim, the partners, tenant-farmers, administrators, and the woman who does transactions in the house, and the son of the house [member of the household]. If he said to him, what do you claim of me? It is my desire that you swear to me, he is liable. If the partners or tenant-farmers divide, he is not able to make them swear, if the oath was transferred from another claim, they transfer upon him everything. And the Sabbatical year cancels the oath."
+ ],
+ [
+ "There are four types of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid watchmen and a renter. An unpaid guardian swears for all types of cases [to exempt himself from payment], the borrower pays in all cases. A paid guardian and a renter take an oath in the case of the animal breaking a limb, being captured [by an army] or if it dies but pay in the case of the animal being lost of stolen. ",
+ "If he said to the unpaid guardian where is my ox and he said it died, but in reality it broke a limb or was captured or was stolen or was lost. Or he claimed it broke a limb but in reality it died or was captured or stolen or was lost. It was captured, but in reality it died or broke a limb or was stolen or was lost. It was stolen but in reality it died or broke a limb or was captured or was lost. It was lost but in reality it died or was broken or captured or stolen, and the owner said swear to me and he said Amen, agreed, the guardian is exempt (from an asham sacrifice). ",
+ "If he asked where is my ox? and [the unpaid guardian] said to him I dont know what you're talking about but in reality it died or broke a limb or was captured or was stolen or was lost, and the owner said swear to me and he said Amen, agreed, he is exempt [from a sacrifice]. If he asked, where is my ox and he answered it was lost, if he said swear to me and he said Amen, agreed, but witnesses testify that in reality he ate it, the guardian pays the value of the ox. If he admitted on his own, he pays the value of the ox plus a fifth of its value and must bring an asham. If he asked, where is my ox and he answered it was stolen, he said swear to me and the guardian said Amen, agreed, but witnesses testify that in reality he really stole it, he must pay double the value of the ox. If he admitted on his own he pays the value of the ox plus a fifth of its value and must bring an asham.",
+ "If he said to someone in the marketplace where is my ox that you stole? And he says I did not steal it and witnesses testify that he did steal it, the thief must pay double [the value of the ox]. If he slaughtered it and sold it he pays four or five times [its value]. If he saw witnesses coming and he said I stole it but did not slaughter or sell it, he only pays the principle. ",
+ "If he asked the borrower where is my ox? and he answered it died, but in reality it broke a limb or was captured or was stolen or lost.[He said] it broke a limb but in reality it died or was captured or was stolen or was lost. [He said] it was captured but in reality it died or it broke a limb or it was stolen or it was lost. [He said] it was stolen but in reality it died or broke a limb or was captured or lost. [He said] it was lost but in reality it died or broke a limb or was captured or lost and he said swear to me and he said Amen, agreed, he is exempt [from a sacrifice].",
+ "If he asked [the borrower] where is my ox, and he said I don't know what you're talking about, but in reality it died or broke a limb or was captured or was stolen or lost and he said swear to me and the borrower said Amen, agreed, he is obligated [to bring a sacrifice]. If he said to the paid guardian or the renter where is my ox? and he said it died, but in reality it broke a limb or was captured. [He said] it broke a limb but in reality it died or was captured. [He said] it was captured, but in reality it died or broke a limb. [He said] it was stolen but in reality it was lost. [He said] it was lost but in reality it was stolen if he says swear to me and he says Amen, agreed, he is exempt [from a sacrifice]. [He said] it died or broke a limb or was captured but in reality it was stolen or lost and he said swear to me and he said Amen, agreed, he is obligated [to bring a sacrifice]. [He said] it was lost or stolen but in reality it died or broke a limb or was captured and he said swear to me and he said Amen, agreed, he is exempt [from a sacrifice]. This is the rule, any claim that changes from one obligation [to pay] to another obligation or from one exemption to another exemption, or from an exemptin to an obligation, he is exempt [from a sacrifice]. "
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/Hebrew/Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/Hebrew/Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61b4a90350d20fec9e9ba159e40ff688eddd8ddd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/Hebrew/Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri.json
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+{
+ "language": "he",
+ "title": "Mishnah Shevuot",
+ "versionSource": "https://archive.org/details/MishnaCorrectedKaufman00WHOLE",
+ "versionTitle": "Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "PD",
+ "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+ "actualLanguage": "he",
+ "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+ "isSource": true,
+ "isPrimary": true,
+ "direction": "rtl",
+ "heTitle": "משנה שבועות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "א\nשְׁבוּעוֹת, שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. \nיְדִיעוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה, שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. \nיְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת, שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. \nמַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים, שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה. \n",
+ "ב\nכָּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה וִידִיעָה בַסּוֹף וְהֶעְלֵם בִּנְתַּיִם, \nהֲרֵי זֶה בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. \nיֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה וְאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף, \nשָׂעִיר הַנֶּעֱשָׂה בִפְנִים יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים תּוֹלֶה, \nעַד שֶׁתִּוָּדַע לוֹ, וְיָבִיא בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. \n",
+ "ג\nאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה, \nאֲבָל יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף, \nשָׂעִיר הַנֶּעֱשָׂה בַחוּץ יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (במדבר כט,יא) \n\"מִלְּבַד חַטַּאת הַכִּפֻּרִים\". \nעַל מַה שֶּׁזֶּה מְכַפֵּר זֶה מְכַפֵּר: \nמַה הַפְּנִימִי, \nאֵינוּ מְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ יְדִיעָה, \nאַף הַחִיצוֹן, \nלֹא יְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ יְדִיעָה. <בָּהּ>\n",
+ "ד\nוְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף, \nשְׂעִירֵי רְגָלִים וּשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִים. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי יְהוּדָה. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nשְׂעִירֵי רְגָלִים מְכַפְּרִים, \nאֲבָל לֹא שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים. \nוְעַל מַה שְּׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִים? \nעַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל טָמֵא. <טָּהוֹר>\nרְבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: \nכָּל הַשְּׂעִירִים כַּפָּרָתָן שָׁוָה, \nעַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. \n\nה\nהָיָה רְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִים עַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל טָמֵא. \nוְשֶׁלָּרְגָלִים מְכַפְּרִים עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה, \nלֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף. \nוְשֶׁלְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה [בַתְּחִלָּה, \nאֲבָל יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה] בַסּוֹף. \n\nו\nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nמַה הֵן שֶׁיִּקָּרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה? \nאָמַר לָהֶן: \nיִקָּרְבוּ. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nהוֹאִיל וְאֵין כַּפָּרָתָן שָׁוָה, \nהֵיאָךְ הֵן קְרֵבִין? \nאָמַר לָהֶן: \nכֻּלָּם בָּאִין לְכַפֵּר עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. \n",
+ "ז\nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ: \nשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִים עַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל טָמֵא. \nמוּסָף עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁלָּרְגָלִין, \nשֶׁהֵן מְכַפְּרִין עַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל טָמֵא, \nוְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף. \nמוּסָף עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, \nשֶׁהֵן מְכַפְּרִין עַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל טָמֵא, \nוְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף, \nוְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה, \nאֲבָל יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף. \n\nח\nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nמַה הֵן שֶׁיִּקָּרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה? <אוֹמֵר הָיָה>\nאָמַר לָהֶן: \nהִין. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nאִם כֵּן, \nיְהוּ שֶׁלְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים קְרֵבִים לְרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים, \nאֲבָל הֵיאָךְ שֶׁלְּרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים קְרֵבִים לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, \nלְכַפֵּר כַּפָּרָה שֶׁאֵינָה שֶׁלָּהֶן? \nאָמַר לָהֶן: \nכֻּלָּם בָּאִין לְכַפֵּר עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. <כְּלוּם>\n",
+ "ט\nוְעַל זְדוֹן טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, \nשָׂעִיר הַנֶּעֱשָׂה בִפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר. \nוְעַל שְׁאָר עֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, \nהַקַּלּוֹת וְהַחֲמוּרוֹת, \nהַזְּדוֹנוֹת וְהַשְּׁגָגוֹת, \nהוֹדַע וְלֹא הוֹדַע, \nעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, \nכָּרֵתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, \nשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר. \n",
+ "י\nאֶחָד יִשְׂרְאֵלִים, וְאֶחָד כֹּהֲנִים, וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ. \nאֶלָּא שֶׁדַּם הַפָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים \nוְעַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nכַּשֵּׁם שֶׁדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר הַנֶּעֱשָׂה בִפְנִים מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, \nכָּךְ דַּם הַפָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים. \nכַּשֵּׁם שֶׁוִּדּוּיוֹ שֶׁלְּשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, \nכָּךְ וִדּוּיוֹ שֶׁלַּפַּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nיְדִיעוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע: \nנִטַּמָּא וְיָדַע, \nוְנֶעְלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טֻמְאָה, וְזָכוּר לַקֹּדֶשׁ; \nנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ קֹדֶשׁ, וְזָכוּר לַטֻּמְאָה; \nנֶעְלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה, \nאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע, \nהֲרֵי זֶה בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. \n\nב\nנִטַּמָּא וְיָדַע, \nנֶעְלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טֻמְאָה, וְזָכוּר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ; \nנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ, וְזָכוּר לַטֻּמְאָה; \nנֶעְלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה, \nנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע, מִשֶּׁיָּצָא יָדַע, \nהֲרֵי זֶה בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. \n",
+ "ג\nאֶחָד הַנִּכְנָס לַעֲזָרָה וְאֶחָד הַנִּכְנָס לְתוֹסֶפֶת הָעֲזָרָה. \nשֶׁאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת, \nאֶלָּא בְמֶלֶךְ, בַּנָּבִיא בָאוּרִים וּבְתֻמִּים, \nוּבְסֶנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁלְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, \nוּבִשְׁתֵּי תוֹדוֹת וּבְשִׁיר. \nוּבֵית דִּין מְהַלְּכִין וּשְׁתֵּי תוֹדוֹת אַחֲרֵיהֶן, \nהַפְּנִימִית נֶאֱכֶלֶת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה נִשְׂרֶפֶת. \nוְכָל שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֱשֵׂת בְכָל אֵלּוּ, \nהַנִּכְנָס לַשָּׁם, אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ. \n",
+ "ד\nנִטַּמָּא בָעֲזָרָה, \nנֶעְלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טֻמְאָה, וְזָכוּר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ; \nנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ, וְזָכוּר לַטֻּמְאָה; \nנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה, \nהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה, שֶׁשָּׁהָה בִכְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה, <הַשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה>\nבָּא לוֹ בָאֲרֻכָּה, חַיָּב, \nוּבַקְּצָרָה, פָּטוּר. \nזוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, \nשֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ. \n",
+ "ה\nאֵי זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּנִּדָּה, \nשֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ? \nהָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה, \nאָמְרָה לוֹ \"נִטְמֵאתִי\", \nאִם פֵּרַשׁ מִיָּד, \nחַיָּב, שֶׁיְּצִיאָתוֹ הֲנָיָה לוֹ כְבִיאָתוֹ. \n",
+ "ו\nרְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: (ויקרא ה,ב) \nהַ \"שֶׁרֶץ... וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ\", \nעַל הֶעְלֵם הַשֶּׁרֶץ הוּא חַיָּב, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַל הֶעְלֵם הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. \nרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: (ויקרא ה,ב) \n\"וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא טָמֵא\", \nעַל הֶעְלֵם הַטֻּמְאָה הוּא חַיָּב, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. \nרְבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: (ויקרא ה,ב-ג)\n\"וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ... וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ\" שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים, \nלְחַיֵּב עַל הֶעְלֵם הַטֻּמְאָה וְעַל הֶעְלֵם הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nשְׁבוּעוֹת, שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע: \n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֹכַל\", וְ\"שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל\", \n\"שֶׁאָכַלְתִּי\", וְ\"שֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי\". \n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל\", וְאָכַל כָּל שֶׁהוּא, \nחַיָּב. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי עֲקִיבָה. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ לִרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה: \nבְּאֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בְאוֹכֵל כָּל שֶׁהוּא, \nשֶׁהוּא חַיָּב, שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּב? \nאָמַר לָהֶן: \nבְּאֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בִמְדַבֵּר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן, \nשֶׁזֶּה מְדַבֵּר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן? \n\nב\n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל\", וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. \n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה\", וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה, \nחַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. \n",
+ "ג\n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל\", \nוְאָכַל פַּת חִטִּין וּפַת שְׂעוֹרִים וּפַת כֻּסְּמִים, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. \n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל פַּת חִטִּין וּפַת שְׂעוֹרִים וּפַת כֻּסְּמִים\", \nוְאָכַל, \nחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \n",
+ "ד\n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה\", \nוְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין הַרְבֵּה, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. \n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה יַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ\", \nוְשָׁתָה, \nחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \n",
+ "ה\n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל\", \nוְאָכַל אֳכָלִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִן לַאֲכִילָה, \nוְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִן לִשְׁתִיָּה, \nפָּטוּר. \n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל\", \nוְאָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, וּשְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, \nחַיָּב. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. \nאָמַר \"קֻנָּם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהְנֵית לִי אִם אָכַלְתִּי הַיּוֹם\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁאָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, \nהֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה. \n",
+ "ו\nאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְּעַצְמוֹ, \nוְאֶחָד דְּבָרִין שֶׁלַּאֲחֵרִים, \nוְאֶחָד דְּבָרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ, \nוְאֶחָד דְּבָרִין שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ. \nכֵּיצַד? \nאָמַר \"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֶתֵּן לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי\", וְ\"שֶׁלֹּא אֶתֵּן\", \n\"שֶׁנָּתַתִּי\", וְ\"שֶׁלֹּא נָתַתִּי\", \n\"שֶׁאִישַׁן\", וְ\"שֶׁלֹּא אִישַׁן\", \n\"שֶׁיָּשַׁנְתִּי, וְ\"שֶׁלֹּא יָשַׁנְתִּי\", \n\"שֶׁאֶזְרֹק צְרוֹר לַיָּם\", וְ\"שֶׁלֹּא אֶזְרֹק\", \n\"שֶׁזָּרַקְתִּי\", וְ\"שֶׁלֹּא זָרַקְתִּי\". \nרְבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא ה,ד) \n\"לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב\". \nאָמַר לוֹ רְבִּי עֲקִיבָה: \nאִם כֵּן, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה. \nדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה, מְנַיִן? \nאָמַר לוֹ: \nמֵרִבּוּי הַכָּתוּב. \nאָמַר לוֹ: \nאִם רִבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ, \nרִבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ. \n",
+ "ז\nנִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה, וְלֹא בִטֵּל, \nפָּטוּר; \nלְקַיֵּם אֶת הַמִּצְוָה, וְלֹא קִיֵּם, \nפָּטוּר, שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב, \nכְּדִבְרֵי רְבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן בְּתִירָה: \nמָה אִם הָרְשׁוּת, שֶׁאֵינוּ מֻשְׁבָּע עָלֶיהָ מֵהַר סִינַי, \nהֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ, \nמִצְוָה, שֶׁהוּא מֻשְׁבָּע עָלֶיהָ מֵהַר סִינַי, \nאֵינוּ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ? \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nלֹא! \nאִם אָמַרְתָּ בִשְׁבוּעַת הָרְשׁוּת, \nשֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה בָהּ לָאו כְּהִין, \nתֹּאמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת מִצְוָה, \nשֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָהּ לָאו כְּהִין. \n",
+ "ח\n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ\", \n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכְלֶנָּה\", \nוַאֲכָלָהּ, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. \nזוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי, \nשֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת, \nוְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. \n\nט\nשְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, \nחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת, \nוְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר. \n",
+ "אֵיזוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא? \nנִשְׁבַּע לְשַׁנּוֹת אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ לָאָדָן: \nאָמַר עַל הָעַמּוּד שֶׁלָּאֶבֶן שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלַּזָּהָב, \nוְעַל הָאִישׁ שֶׁהוּא אִשָּׁה, \nוְעַל אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא אִישׁ. \nעַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ: \n\"אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי גָמָל שֶׁפּוֹרֵחַ בְּאָוֵיר\", \nוְ\"אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ כְּקוֹרַת בֵּית הַבַּד\". \nאָמַר לָעֵדִים \"בּוֹאוּ וְהַעִידוּנִי!\" \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא נְעִידֶךָ!\" \nנִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה: \nשֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׁוֹת סֻכָּה, \nוְשֶׁלֹּא לִטּוֹל לוּלָב, \nוְשֶׁלֹּא לְהָנִיחַ תְּפִלִּין, \nזוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, \nשֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת, \nוְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר. \n",
+ "י\n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ\", \n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכְלֶנָּה\", \nהָרִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי, \nוְהַשְּׁנִיָּה שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. \nאֲכָלָהּ, עָבַר עַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. \nלֹא אֲכָלָהּ, עָבַר עַל שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי. \n",
+ "יא\nשְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאֲנָשִׁים, בַּנָּשִׁים, \nבָּרְחוֹקִים, בַּקְּרוֹבִים, \nבַּכְּשֵׁרִין, בַּפְּסוּלִים, \nבִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, וְשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, \nמִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. \nוְחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת, \nוְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. \n",
+ "יב\nשְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאֲנָשִׁין, בַּנָּשִׁים, \nבָּרְחוֹקִים, בַּקְּרוֹבִים, \nבַּכְּשֵׁרִים, בַּפְּסוּלִים, \nבִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, וְשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, \nמִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. \nוְחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת, \nוְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר. \nאַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ, \nהַמֻּשְׁבָּע מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, חַיָּב. \n\"אִם לֹא אָכַלְתִּי הַיּוֹם\", \nוְ\"לֹא הִנַּחְתִּי תְפִלִּין הַיּוֹם, מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אָנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", חַיָּב. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nשְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא בַנָּשִׁים, \nבָּרְחוֹקִין וְלֹא בַקְּרוֹבִין, \nבַּכְּשֵׁרִין וְלֹא בַּפְּסוּלִין, \nוְאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בִּרְאוּיִים לְהָעִיד. \nבִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, \nמִפִּי עַצְמוֹ וּמִפִּי אֲחֵרִין. \nאֵינָן חַיָּבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין. <שֶׁיְּכַפְּרוּ> \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nבֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ וּבֵין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִין, \nאֵינָן חַיָּבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין. <שֶׁיְּכַפְּרוּ>\n",
+ "ב\nוְחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה, \nוְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ עִם זְדוֹן הָעֵדוּת, \nאֵינָן חַיָּבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. \nוּמַה הֵן חַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ? \nקָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. \n",
+ "ג\nשְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת כֵּיצַד? \nאָמַר לָעֵדִין: \n\"בּוֹאוּ וְהַעִידוּנִי!\" \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים לָךְ עֵדוּת!\" \nאוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \n\"אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לָךְ עֵדוּת\", \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם!\" \nוְאָמְרוּ \"אָמֵן\", \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. \nהִשְׁבִּיעַ עֲלֵיהֶן חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין, \nוּבָאוּ לְבֵית דִּין וְהוֹדוּ, \nפְּטוּרִים. \nכָּפְרוּ, \nחַיָּבִים עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \nהִשְׁבִּיעַ עֲלֵיהֶן חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים, \nבֵּין בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין,\nוְכָפְרוּ, \nאֵין חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא אַחַת. \nאָמַר רְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: \nמַה הַטַּעַם? \nמִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָם יְכוּלִין לַחְזוֹר וּלְהוֹדוֹת. <וּלְהוֹרוֹת>\n",
+ "ד\nכָּפְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת, \nשְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָּבִין; \nזֶה אַחַר זֶה, \nהָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּב. \nכָּפַר אֶחָד וְהוֹדָה אֶחָד, \nהַכּוֹפֵר חַיָּב. \nהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִתֵּי עֵדִים, \nכָּפְרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּפְרָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה, \nשְׁתֵּיהֶן חַיָּבוֹת, \nמִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעֵדוּת יְכוּלָה לְהִתְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. \n",
+ "ה\n\"מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, \nאִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, \nשֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי פִקָּדוֹן וּתְשׁוּמֶת יָד וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה\", \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לָךְ עֵדוּת\", \nאֵינָן חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא אַחַת. \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין, \nשֶׁיֶּשׁ לָךְ בְּיַד פְּלוֹנִי פִּקָּדוֹן וּתְשׁוּמֶת יָד, גָּזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה\", \nחַיָּבִין עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \n\nו\n\"מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, \nאִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, \nשֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכֻסְּמִין\", \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לָךְ עֵדוּת\", \nאֵינָן חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא אַחַת; \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לָךְ עֵדוּת, \nשֶׁיֶּשׁ לָךְ בְּיַד אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי חִטִּים וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכֻסְּמִין\", \nחַיָּבִין עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \n",
+ "ז\n\"מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, \nשֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי נֶזֶק, וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק, \nתַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, \nוְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, \nוְשֶׁאָנַס אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפִּתָּה בִתִּי, \nוְשֶׁהִכַּנִי בְנִי, \nוְשֶׁחָבַל בִּי חֲבֵרִי, \nוְשֶׁהִדְלִיק אֶת גְּדִישִׁי בְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים\", \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. \n",
+ "ח\n\"מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, \nשֶׁאֲנִי כֹהֵן, \nשֶׁאֲנִי לֵוִי, \nשֶׁאֵינִי בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה, \nשֶׁאֵינִי בֶן חֲלוּצָה, \nשֶׁאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי כֹהֵן, \nשֶׁאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לֵוִי, \nשֶׁאֵינוּ בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה, \nשֶׁאֵינוּ בֶן חֲלוּצָה, \nשֶׁאָנַס אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפִּתָּה בִתּוֹ, \nוְשֶׁחָבַל בּוֹ בְנוֹ, \nוְשֶׁהִדְלִיק גְּדִישִׁי בַשַּׁבָּת\", \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. \n",
+ "ט\n\"מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, \nשֶׁאָמַר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִתֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז וְלֹא נָתַן\", \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִים, \nשֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין [אֶלָּא] עַל תְּבִיעַת מָמוֹן כַּפִּקָּדוֹן. \n",
+ "י\n\"מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, \nכְּשֶׁתֵּדְעוּ לִי עֵדוּת, שֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי\", \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין, \nמִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדְמָה שְׁבוּעָה לָעֵדוּת. \n",
+ "יא\nעָמַד בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, וְאָמַר: \n\"מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם יוֹדְעִין אַתֶּם לִי עֵדוּת, \nשֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי\", \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. \n",
+ "יב\nאָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: \n\"מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, \nאִם יוֹדְעִין אַתֶּם לִי עֵדוּת, \nשֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי\", \nוְהֵם שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת עֵד מִפִּי עֵד, <לִי>\nאוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. \n",
+ "יג\nשִׁלַּח בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, \nאוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן הַנִּתְבָּע: \n\"מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, אִם יוֹדְעִין אַתֶּם לִי עֵדוּת, \nשֶׁתָּבוֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּהוּ!\" \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִים, \nעַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ מִפִּי הַתּוֹבֵעַ. \n",
+ "יד\n\"מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם\", \n\"מְצַוֶּה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם\", \n\"אוֹסֶרְכֶם אֲנִי\", \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. \n\"בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ\", \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. \n\"בְּאָלֶף דָלֶת\", \n\"בְּיוֹד הֵי\", \n\"בְּשַׁדַּי\", \n\"בִּצְבָאוֹת\", \n\"בְּחַנּוּן וּבְרַחוּם\", \n\"בְּאֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד\", \nוְכָל הַכִּנּוּיִים, \nהֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. \nהַמְקַלֵּל בְּכֻלָּם, חַיָּב. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. \nהַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ בְכֻלָּם, חַיָּב. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. \nהַמְקַלֵּל עַצְמוֹ וַחֲבֵרוֹ בְכֻלָּם, \nעוֹבֵר בְּ'לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה'. \n\"יַכְּכָה הָאֱלֹהִים!\" \nזוֹ הִיא הָאָלָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַתּוֹרָה (ויקרא ה,א) \n\"אַל יַכְּכָה\", \n\"יְבָרֶכְךָ וְיֵיטִיב לָךְ\", \nרְבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב, \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה פוֹטֵר. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאֲנָשִׁים וּבַנָּשִׁים, \nוּבָרְחוֹקִים וּבַקְּרוֹבִים, \nוּבַכְּשֵׁרִים וּבַפְּסוּלִים, \nבִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, \nמִפִּי עַצְמוֹ וּמִפִּי אַחֵר. \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּכְפֹּר בּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nבֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ וּבֵין מִפִּי אַחֵר, \nכֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּפַר בּוֹ, חַיָּב. \nוְחַיָּב עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה, \nוְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ עִם זְדוֹן הַפִּקָּדוֹן, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. \nמַה הוּא חַיָּב עַל זְדוֹנוֹ? \nאָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים. \n",
+ "ב\nשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן כֵּיצַד? \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"תֶּן לִי פִקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי\". \nאוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי\", \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nהֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. \nהִשְׁבִּיעַ עָלָיו חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים, \nבִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, <שֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין> \nוְכָפַר, \nחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \nאָמַר רְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: \nמַה הַטַּעַם? \nמִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר וּלְהוֹדוֹת. \n",
+ "ג\nהָיוּ חֲמִשָּׁה תוֹבְעִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאוֹמְרִין לוֹ: \n\"תֶּן לָנוּ פִקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָנוּ בְיָדָךְ\", \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם בְּיָדִי\", \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת; \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי, וְלֹא לָךְ וְלֹא לָךְ וְלֹא לָךְ\", \nחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \n(רְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: \nעַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר \"שְׁבוּעָה\" בָאַחֲרוֹנָה. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nעַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר \"שְׁבוּעָה\" לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.) \n\nד\n\"תֶּן לִי פִקָּדוֹן וּתְשׁוּמֶת יָד, וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה, \nשֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי\", \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי פִקָּדוֹן וּתְשׁוּמֶת יָד, \nוְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה\", \nחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \n\nה\n\"תֶּן לִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכֻסְּמִין שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי\", \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. \n--\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין וְכֻסְּמִין\", \nחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. \nרְבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: \nאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר: \n\"חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְכֻסֶּמֶת\", \nחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. <לְכָל>\n",
+ "ו\n\"אָנַסְתָּ וּפִתִּיתָ אֶת בִּתִּי\", \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא אָנַסְתִּי וְלֹא פִתִּיתִי\", \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nחַיָּב. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, \nשֶׁאֵינוּ מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. \nוְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוּ מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, \nמְשַׁלֵּם בֹּשֶׁת וּפְגָם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. \n",
+ "ז\n\"גָּנַבְתָּ אֶת שׁוֹרִי\", \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא גָנַבְתִּי\", \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nחַיָּב. \n\"גָּנַבְתִּי, אֲבָל לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכַרְתִּי\", \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nפָּטוּר. \n\nח\n\"הֵמִית שׁוֹרָךְ אֶת שׁוֹרִי\", \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא הֵמִית\", \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nחַיָּב. \n\"הֵמִית שׁוֹרָךְ אֶת עַבְדִּי\", \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא הֵמִית\", \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nפָּטוּר. \nאָמַר לוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ: \n\"חָבַלְתָּ בִי וְעָשִׂיתָ בִּי חַבּוּרָה\", \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא חָבַלְתִּי וְלֹא עָשִׂיתִי\", \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nחַיָּב. \nאָמַר לוֹ עַבְדּוֹ: \n\"הִפַּלְתָּ אֶת שִׁנִּי וְסִמִּיתָ אֶת עֵינִי\", <שִׁנַּי; עֵינַי>\nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא הִפַּלְתִּי וְלֹא סִמִּיתִי\", \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nפָּטוּר. \nזֶה הַכְּלָל: \nכָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ חַיָּב, \nוְשֶׁאֵינוּ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ פָּטוּר. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nשְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּנִין, \nהַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף, וְהַהוֹדָיָה בְשׁוֹוֶה פְרוּטָה. \nוְאִם אֵין הוֹדָיָה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה, \nפָּטוּר. \nכֵּיצַד? \n\"שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \n--\"אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי\", \nפָּטוּר. \n\"שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף וּפְרוּטָה לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \n--\"אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי\", \nפָּטוּר. \n\"שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף וּפְרוּטָה לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \n--\"אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה\", \nחַיָּב. \n\"מָנֶה לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \n--\"אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי\", \nפָּטוּר. \n\"מָנֶה לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \n--\"אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר\", \nחַיָּב. \n\"מָנֶה לְאַבָּא בְיָדָךְ\", \n--\"אֵין לוֹ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר\", <לָךְ>\nפָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה. \n",
+ "ב\n\"מָנֶה לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \nאָמַר לוֹ \"הִין\", \nוּלְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ: \n\"תְּנֵהוּ לִי!\" \n--\"נְתַתִּיו לָךְ\", \nפָּטוּר. \n--\"אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי\", \nחַיָּב. \n\"מָנֶה לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \nאָמַר לוֹ \"הִין\", \n--\"אַל תִּתְּנֵהוּ לִי אֶלָּא בִפְנֵי עֵדִים!\" \nלְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ: \n\"תְּנֵהוּ לִי!\" \n--\"נְתַתִּיו לָךְ\", \nחַיָּב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לִתְּנוֹ לוֹ בִפְנֵי עֵדִים. \n",
+ "ג\n\"לִטְרָה זָהָב לִי בְיָדָךְ!\" \n--\"אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לִטְרָה כֶסֶף\", \nפָּטוּר. \n\"דִּינַר זָהָב לִי בְיָדָךְ!\" \n--\"אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא דִינַר כֶּסֶף, \nוּטְרִיסוֹת, וּפָנְדְּיוֹן, וּפְרוּטָה\", \nחַיָּב, שֶׁהַכֹּל מִין מַטְבֵּעַ אֶחָד. \n\nד\n\"כּוֹר תְּבוּאָה יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \n--\"אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ קִטְנִית\", \nפָּטוּר. \n\"כּוֹר פֵּרוֹת יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \n--\"אֵין לָךְ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ קִטְנִית\", \nחַיָּב, שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית בִּכְלַל הַפֵּרוֹת. \nטְעָנוֹ חִטִּין, וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִשְׂעוֹרִים, \nפָּטוּר. \nרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מְחַיֵּב, \nשֶׁהַטּוֹעֵן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן, \nוְהוֹדָה לוֹ בְקִנְקְנִים, <בקינקינים>\nאַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nהוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה, יִשָּׁבַע. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nאֵין הוֹדָיָה מִן הַטַּעֲנָה. \nאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: \nרוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן. \n\nה\nטְעָנוֹ כֵלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת, \nהוֹדָה בַכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת, \nבַּקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בַּכֵּלִים, \n[פָּטוּר]. \nהוֹדָה בְּמִקְצָת הַכֵּלִים, \nחַיָּב, \nבְמִקְצָת הַקַּרְקָעוֹת, \nפָּטוּר, שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת \nזוֹקְקִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת, \nיִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן. \n",
+ "ו\nאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, \nוְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַקָּטָן. \nאֲבָל נִשְׁבָּעִין לַקָּטָן וְלַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. \n",
+ "ז\nאֵלּוּ דְבָרִין שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִים עֲלֵיהֶן: \nהָעֲבָדִים, וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת, וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. \nאֵין בָּהֶן לֹא תַשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, \nוְלֹא תַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. \nשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוּ נִשְׁבָּע, \nוְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוּ מְשַׁלֵּם. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nדְּבָרִים שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, \nנִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, \nוְשֶׁאֵינוּ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, \nאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן. \n",
+ "ח\nרְבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: \nיֵשׁ דְּבָרִין שֶׁהֵן כַּקַּרְקַע וְאֵינָן כַּקַּרְקַע. \nוְאֵין חֲכָמִים מוֹדִין לוֹ. \nכֵּיצַד? \nאָמַר לוֹ:\n\"עֶשֶׂר גְּפָנִים טְעוּנוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ\", \nוְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: \n\"אֵינָן אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ\", \nרְבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב, \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nכָּל הַמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי הוּא כַקַּרְקַע. \n\nט\nאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בַמִּדָּה וּבַמִּשְׁקָל וּבַמִּנְיָן. \nכֵּיצַד? \n\"בַּיִת מָלֵא מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ\", \nוְ\"כִּיס מָלֵא מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ\", \nוְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: \n\"אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁהִנַּחְתָּ אַתָּה נוֹטֵל\", \nפָּטוּר. \nזֶה אוֹמֵר \"עַל הַזִּיז\", \nוְזֶה אוֹמֵר \"עַל הַחַלּוֹן\", \nחַיָּב. \n",
+ "י\nהַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, \nוְאָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן. \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו, וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שׁוֹוֶה\", \nוְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו, \nוְסֶלַע הָיָה שׁוֹוֶה\", \nפָּטוּר. \n\nיא\n\"סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו, וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שׁוֹוֶה\", \nוְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו, \nוּשְׁלֹשָׁה דִינָרִים הָיָה שׁוֹוֶה\", \nחַיָּב. \n\nיב\n\"סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו, וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שׁוֹוֶה\", \nוְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו, \nוְסֶלַע הָיָה שׁוֹוֶה\", \nפָּטוּר. \n\nיג\n\"סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו, וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שׁוֹוֶה\", \nוְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו, \nוַחֲמִשָּׁה דִינָרִים הָיָה שׁוֹוֶה\", \nחַיָּב. \nמִי הוּא הַנִּשְׁבָּע? \nמִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ, \nשֶׁמֵּא יִשָּׁבַע זֶה, \nוְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nכָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נִשְׁבָּעִין וְלֹא מְשַׁלְּמִין. \nאֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין: \nהַשָּׂכִיר, וְהַנִּגְזָל, וְהַנֶּחְבָּל, \nוְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה, \nוְהַחַנְוָנִי עַל פִּנְקְסוֹ. \nהַשָּׂכִיר כֵּיצַד? \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"תֶּן לִי שְׂכָרִי שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \nהוּא אוֹמֵר \"נָתַתִּי\", \nוְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר \"לֹא נָטַלְתִּי\", \nהֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nעַד שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָיָה, \nוְיֹאמַר לוֹ: \n\"תֶּן לִי שְׂכָרִי חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ לִי בְיָדָךְ\", \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"הִתְקַבַּלְתָּ מֵהֶן דִּינַר זָהָב\". \n",
+ "ב\nהַנִּגְזָל כֵּיצַד? \nהָיוּ מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, \nוּמִשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת. \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"תֵּן לִי כֵלַי שֶׁנָּטַלְתָּ\", \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא נָטַלְתִּי\", \nהֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nעַד שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָיָה. \nוְיֹאמַר לוֹ: \n\"שְׁנֵי כֵלַי נָטַלְתָּ\", \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא נָטַלְתִּי אֶלָּא אֶחָד\". \n",
+ "ג\nהַנֶּחְבָּל כֵּיצַד? \nהָיוּ מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ שָׁלֵם, \nוְיָצָא חָבוּל. \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"חָבַלְתָּ בִּי\", \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא חָבַלְתִּי\", \nהֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nעַד שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָיָה. \nוְיֹאמַר לוֹ: \n\"חָבַלְתָּ בִּי שְׁתַּיִם\", \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא חָבַלְתִּי אֶלָּא אַחַת\". \n",
+ "ד\nוְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה, כֵּיצַד? \nאֶחָד שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת וְאֶחָד שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן, <אֶחָת>\nוַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. \nהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם מְשַׂחֵק בַּקָּבְיָה, \nוּמַלְוֶה בָרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחַ יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית, \nשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. \nהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חֲשׁוּדִים, \nחָזְרָה שְׁבוּעָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי יוֹסֵה. \nרְבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: \nיַחֲלֹקוּ. \n",
+ "ה\nוְהַחַנְוָנִי עַל פִּנְקְסוֹ, כֵּיצַד? \nלֹא שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ: \n\"כָּתוּב בְּפִנְקְסִי, שֶׁאַתְּ חַיָּב לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז\", \nאֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: \n\"תֵּן לִבְנִי סָאתַיִם חִטִּין, \nוּלְפוֹעֲלַי סֶלַע מָעוֹת\". \nהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"נָתַתִּי\", \nוְהֵן אוֹמְרִים: \n\"לֹא נָטַלְנוּ\", \nהוּא נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל, \nוְהֵן נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין. \nאָמַר בֶּן נַנָּס: \nכֵּיצַד? \nאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ בָאִין לִידֵי שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא! \nאֶלָּא הוּא נוֹטֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה, \nוְהֵן נוֹטְלִין שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. \n",
+ "ו\nאָמַר לַחַנְוָנִי: \n\"תֶּן לִי בְדִינָר פֵּרוֹת!\" \nוְנָתַן לוֹ. \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"תֶּן לִי אֶת הַדִּינָר!\" \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"נְתַתִּיו לָךְ, וּנְתַתּוֹ בְאַנְפָּלִי\", \nיִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. \nנָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ: \n\"תֶּן לִי אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת!\" \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"נְתַתִּים לָךְ, וְהוֹלַכְתָּם לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתָךְ\", \nיִשָּׁבַע הַחַנְוָנִי. \nרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: <יודה>\nכָּל שֶׁהַפֵּרוֹת בְּיָדוֹ, יָדוֹ לָעֶלְיוֹנָה. \n\nז\nאָמַר לַשֻּׁלְחָנִי: \n\"תֶּן לִי בְדִינָר מָעוֹת!\" \nוְנָתַן לוֹ. \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"תֶּן לִי אֶת הַדִּינָר!\" \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"נְתַתִּיו לָךְ, וּנְתַתּוֹ בְאַנְפָּלִי\", <באנפולי>\nיִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. \nנָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ: \n\"תֶּן לִי אֶת הַמָּעוֹת!\" \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"נְתַתִּים לָךְ, וְהִשְׁלַכְתָּם לְתוֹךְ כִּיסָךְ\", \nיִשָּׁבַע הַשֻּׁלְחָנִי. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַשֻּׁלְחָנִי לִהְיוֹת נוֹתֵן אִסָּר, \nעַד שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל דִּינָרוֹ. \n",
+ "ח\nכַּשֵּׁם שֶׁאָמְרוּ: \nהַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, \nלֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה, \nוְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה, \nלֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. \nמִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין וּמִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים, \nוְהַנִּפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, \nלֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. \n\nט\nוְכֵן הַיְתוֹמִים, \nלֹא יִפָּרְעוּ אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה: \n\"שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פִקְּדָנוּ אַבָּא, \nוְשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא, \nוְשֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ שְׁטָר בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹתָיו שֶׁלְּאַבָּא, \nשֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָרוּעַ. \nהֵעִיד רְבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה, \nשֶׁאֲפִלּוּ נוֹלַד בֵּן לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב, \nהֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. \nאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: \nאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִין שֶׁאָמַר הָאָב בְּשָׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ: \n\"שְׁטָר זֶה אֵינוּ פָרוּעַ\", \nנוֹטֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. \n",
+ "י\nאֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁלֹּא בְטַעֲנָה: \nהַשּׁוּתָפִים, וְהָאֲרִיסִים, וְהָאַפִּטְרוֹפִּים, \nוְהָאִשָּׁה הַנּוֹשָׂא וְהַנּוֹתֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, \nוּבֶן הַבַּיִת. \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"מָה אַתָּה טוֹעֲנֵנִי? \nרְצוֹנִי שֶׁתִּשָּׁבַע לִי\", \nחַיָּב. \nחָלְקוּ הַשּׁוּתָפִים וְהָאֲרִיסִים, \nאֵינוּ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעָן. \nנִתְגַּלְגְּלָה לוֹ שְׁבוּעָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, \nמְגַלְגְּלִים עָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּל. \nוְהַשְּׁבִיעִית מַשְׁמֶטֶת אֶת הַשְּׁבוּעָה. \n\n\n\n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "א\nאַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין הֵן: \nשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. \nשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע עַל הַכֹּל, \nוְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל, \nוְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל הַשֶּׁבֶר, \nוְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְעַל הַמֵּתָה, \nוּמְשַׁלְּמִים אֶת הָאֲבֵדָה וְאֶת הַגְּנֵבָה. \n",
+ "ב\nאָמַר לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם: \n\"אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי?\" \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"מֵת\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. \n\"נִשְׁבַּר\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. \n\"נִשְׁבָּה\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. \n\"נִגְנַב\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ אָבַד. \n\"אָבַד\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב. \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nפָּטוּר. \n",
+ "ג\n\"אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי?\" \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה אַתָּה סָח\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד, \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אָנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nפָּטוּר. \n\nד\n\"אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי?\" \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"אָבַד\". \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nהָעֵדִין מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ, \nמְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן. \nהוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ, \nמְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. \n\nה\n\"אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי?\" \nוְאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"נִגְנַב\". \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nוְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ, \nמְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. \nהוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ, \nמְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. \n",
+ "ו\nאָמַר לְאֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק: \n\"אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי שֶׁגָּנַבְתָּ?\" \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \n\"לֹא גָנַבְתִּי\", \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nוְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ, \nמְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. \nטָבַח וּמָכַר, \nמְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. <ארבעה חמשה> \nרָאָה עֵדִים מְמַשְׁמְשִׁים וּבָאִים, וְאָמַר: \n\"גָּנַבְתִּי, אֲבָל לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכַרְתִּי\", \nאֵינוּ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן. \n",
+ "ז\nאָמַר לַשּׁוֹאֵל: \n\"אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי?\" \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"מֵת\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. \n\"נִשְׁבַּר\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. \n\"נִשְׁבָּה\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. \n\"נִגְנַב\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ אָבַד. \n\"אָבַד\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב. \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nפָּטוּר. \n",
+ "ח\n\"אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי?\" \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה אַתָּה סָח\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nחַיָּב. \n\nט\nאָמַר לְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְלַשּׂוֹכֵר: \n\"אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי?\" \nאָמַר לוֹ: \n\"מֵת\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה. \n\"נִשְׁבַּר\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה. \n\"נִשְׁבָּה\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר. \n\"נִגְנַב\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁאָבַד. \n\"אָבַד\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁנִּגְנַב, \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nפָּטוּר. \n\nי\n\"מֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה\", \nוְהוּא שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד. \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nחַיָּב. \n\"אָבַד אוֹ נִגְנַב\", <שֶׁנִּגְנַב>\nוְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה, \n--\"מַשְׁבִּיעָךְ אֲנִי\", \nוְאָמַר \"אָמֵן\", \nפָּטוּר. \n(זֶה הַכְּלָל: \nכָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה מֵחוֹבָה לְחוֹבָה, \nוּמִפְּטוּר לִפְטוּר, \nוּמִפְּטוּר לְחוֹבָה, פָּטוּר; \nמֵחוֹבָה לִפְטוּר, חַיָּב.) \nזֶה הַכְּלָל: \nכָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּע לְהָקֵל עַל עַצְמוֹ, \nחַיָּב; \nלְהַחְמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ, \nפָּטוּר. \n"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/Hebrew/Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/Hebrew/Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a97caaccfcb04f670e890d4bfd85d8660044b9b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/Hebrew/Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913.json
@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+{
+ "language": "he",
+ "title": "Mishnah Shevuot",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001741739",
+ "versionTitle": "Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 2.0,
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+ "heversionSource": "http://primo.nli.org.il/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=NLI&docId=NNL_ALEPH00174173",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה, מהדורת בית דפוס ראם, וילנא 1913",
+ "actualLanguage": "he",
+ "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+ "isBaseText": true,
+ "isSource": true,
+ "isPrimary": true,
+ "direction": "rtl",
+ "heTitle": "משנה שבועות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "שבועות שתים. שהן ארבע. ידיעות הטומאה. שתים שהן ארבע. יציאות השבת. שתים שהן ארבע. מראות נגעים. שנים שהם ארבעה: ",
+ "כל שיש בה ידיעה בתחלה. וידיעה בסוף. והעלם בינתיים. הרי זה בעולה ויורד. יש בה ידיעה בתחלה. ואין בה ידיעה בסוף. שעיר שנעשה בפנים ויום הכפורים תולה עד שיודע לו. ויביא בעולה ויורד: ",
+ "אין בה ידיעה בתחלה. אבל יש בה ידיעה בסוף. שעיר הנעשה בחוץ ויום הכפורים מכפר. שנאמר (במדבר כט, יא) מלבד חטאת הכפורים. על מה שזה מכפר זה מכפר. מה הפנימי אין מכפר אלא על דבר שיש בה ידיעה. אף החיצון אין מכפר אלא על דבר שיש בה ידיעה: ",
+ "ועל שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף. שעירי הרגלים ושעירי ראשי חדשים מכפרים. דברי רבי יהודה. ר' שמעון אומר שעירי הרגלים מכפרין. אבל לא שעירי ראשי חדשים. ועל מה שעירי ראשי חדשים מכפרין. על הטהור שאכל את הטמא. רבי מאיר אומר כל השעירים כפרתן שוה על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו. היה ר' שמעון אומר שעירי ראשי חדשים מכפרין על הטהור שאכל את הטמא. ושל רגלים מכפרין על שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף. ושל יום הכפורים מכפר על שאין בה ידיעה בתחלה. אבל יש בה ידיעה בסוף. אמרו לו מהו שיקרבו זה בזה. אמר להם יקרבו. אמרו לו הואיל ואין כפרתן שוה. היאך קריבין זה בזה. אמר להן כולן באין לכפר על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו: ",
+ "רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משמו. שעירי ראשי חדשים מכפרין. על הטהור שאכל את הטמא. מוסיף עליהם של רגלים. שמכפרין על טהור שאכל את הטמא. ועל שאין בה ידיעה. לא בתחלה ולא בסוף. מוסיף עליהן של יום הכפורים. שהן מכפרין על הטהור שאכל את הטמא. ועל שאין בה ידיעה. לא בתחלה ולא בסוף. ועל שאין בה ידיעה בתחלה. אבל יש בה ידיעה בסוף. אמרו לו מהו שיקרבו זה בזה. אמר להם הן. אמרו לו אם כן יהיו של יום הכפורים קרבין בראשי חדשים. אבל היאך של ראשי חדשים קריבים ביום הכפורים לכפר כפרה שאינה שלה. אמר להן כולן באין לכפר על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו: ",
+ "ועל זדון טומאת מקדש וקדשיו שעיר הנעשה בפנים ויום הכפורים מכפרין. ועל שאר עבירות שבתורה. הקלות והחמורות. הזדונות והשגגות. הודע ולא הודע. עשה ולא תעשה. כריתות ומיתית בית דין. שעיר המשתלח מכפר: ",
+ "אחד ישראלים. ואחד כהנים. ואחד כהן משוח. מה בין ישראלים לכהנים ולכהן משוח. אלא שדם הפר מכפר על הכהנים על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו. ר' שמעון אומר כשם שדם השעיר הנעשה בפנים מכפר על ישראל כך דם הפר מכפר על הכהנים. כשם שוידויו של שעיר המשתלח מכפר על ישראל כך וידויו של פר מכפר על הכהנים: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "ידיעות הטומאה שתים שהן ארבע. נטמא וידע. ונעלמה ממנו הטומאה. וזכור את הקדש. נעלם ממנו הקדש. וזכור את הטומאה. נעלמו ממנו זה וזה. ואכל את הקדש ולא ידע. ומשאכל ידע. הרי זה בעולה ויורד. נטמא וידע. ונעלמה ממנו טומאה. וזכור את המקדש. נעלם ממנו מקדש. וזכור את הטומאה. נעלם ממנו זה וזה. ונכנס למקדש ולא ידע. ומשיצא ידע. הרי זה בעולה ויורד: ",
+ "אחד הנכנס לעזרה. ואחד הנכנס לתוספת העזרה. שאין מוסיפין על העיר ועל העזרות. אלא במלך ונביא ואורים ותומים ובסנהדרין של שבעים ואחד. ובשתי תודות. ובשיר. ובית דין מהלכין ושתי תודות אחריהם. וכל ישראל אחריהם. הפנימית נאכלת. והחיצונה נשרפת. וכל שלא נעשה בכל אלו. הנכנס לשם. אין חייבין עליה: ",
+ "נטמא בעזרה ונעלמה ממנו טומאה. וזכור את המקדש. נעלם ממנו מקדש וזכור לטומאה. נעלם ממנו זה וזה. והשתחוה. או ששהה בכדי השתחואה. בא לו בארוכה חייב. בקצרה פטור. זו היא מצות עשה שבמקדש שאין חייבין עליה: ",
+ "ואיזו היא מצות עשה שבנדה שחייבין עליה. היה משמש עם הטהורה. ואמרה לו נטמאתי. ופירש מיד חייב. מפני שיציאתו הנאה לו כביאתו: ",
+ "רבי אליעזר אומר (ויקרא ה, ב) השרץ. ונעלם ממנו. על העלם שרץ חייב. ואינו חייב על העלם מקדש. רבי עקיבא אומר ונעלם ממנו והוא טמא. על העלם טומאה חייב. ואינו חייב על העלם מקדש. ר' ישמעאל אומר ונעלם ונעלם שתי פעמים. לחייב על העלם טומאה ועל העלם מקדש: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "שבועות שתים שהן ארבע. שבועה שאוכל ושלא אוכל. שאכלתי ושלא אכלתי. שבועה שלא אוכל ואכל כל שהוא. חייב. דברי רבי עקיבא. אמרו לו לרבי עקיבא היכן מצינו באוכל כל שהוא. שהוא חייב. שזה חייב. אמר להן רבי עקיבא וכי היכן מצינו במדבר ומביא קרבן. שזה מדבר ומביא קרבן. שבועה שלא אוכל. ואכל ושתה. אינו חייב אלא אחת. שבועה שלא אוכל ושלא אשתה. ואכל ושתה חייב שתים: ",
+ "שבועה שלא אוכל. ואכל פת חטין ופת שעורין ופת כוסמין. אינו חייב אלא אחת. שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין ופת שעורין ופת כוסמין ואכל. חייב על כל אחת ואחת: ",
+ "שבועה שלא אשתה. ושתה משקין הרבה. אינו חייב אלא אחת. שבועה שלא אשתה יין ושמן ודבש. ושתה. חייב על כל אחת ואחת: ",
+ "שבועה שלא אוכל. ואכל אוכלים שאינן ראוין לאכילה. ושתה משקין שאינן ראוין לשתיה. פטור. שבועה שלא אוכל. ואכל נבלות וטרפות שקצים ורמשים. חייב. רבי שמעון פוטר. אמר קונם אשתי נהנית לי אם אכלתי היום. והוא אכל נבלות וטרפות שקצים ורמשים הרי אשתו אסורה: ",
+ "אחד דברים של עצמו. ואחד דברים של אחרים. ואחד דברים שיש בהן ממש. ואחד דברים שאין בהם ממש. כיצד אמר שבועה שאתן לאיש פלוני. ושלא אתן. שנתתי. ושלא נתתי. שאישן. ושלא אישן. שישנתי. ושלא ישנתי. שאזרוק צרור לים. ושלא אזרוק. שזרקתי. ושלא זרקתי. רבי ישמעאל אומר אינו חייב אלא על העתיד לבא. שנאמר(ויקרא ה, ד) להרע או להטיב. אמר לו רבי עקיבא אם כן אין לי אלא דברים שיש בהן הרעה והטבה. דברים שאין בהן הרעה והטבה מנין. אמר לו מרבוי הכתוב. אמר לו אם ריבה הכתוב לכך. ריבה הכתוב לכך: ",
+ "נשבע לבטל את המצוה. ולא ביטל פטור. לקיים ולא קיים פטור. שהיה בדין שיהא חייב כדברי רבי יהודה בן בתירא. אמר רבי יהודה בן בתירא מה אם הרשות שאינו מושבע עליה מהר סיני. הרי הוא חייב עליה. מצוה שהוא מושבע עליה מהר סיני אינו דין שיהא חייב עליה. אמרו לו לא. אם אמרת בשבועת הרשות שכן עשה בה לאו כהן. תאמר בשבועת מצוה שלא עשה בה לאו כהן. שאם נשבע לבטל ולא ביטל פטור: ",
+ "שבועה שלא אוכל ככר זו. שבועה שלא אוכלנה. שבועה שלא אוכלנה. ואכלה אינו חייב אלא אחת. זו היא שבועת בטוי שחייבין על זדונה מכות. ועל שגגתה קרבן עולה ויורד. שבועת שוא חייבין על זדונה מכות. ועל שגגתה פטור: ",
+ "איזו היא שבועת שוא נשבע לשנות את הידוע לאדם. אמר על העמוד של אבן שהוא של זהב. ועל האיש שהוא אשה. ועל האשה שהיא איש. נשבע על דבר שאי אפשר. אם לא ראיתי גמל שפורח באויר. ואם לא ראיתי נחש כקורת בית הבד. אמר לעדים בואו והעידוני. שבועה שלא נעידך. נשבע לבטל את המצוה. שלא לעשות סוכה. ושלא ליטול לולב. ושלא להניח תפילין. זו היא שבועת שוא שחייבין על זדונה מכות. ועל שגגתה פטור: ",
+ "שבועה שאוכל ככר זו שבועה שלא אוכלנה. הראשונה שבועת בטוי. והשניה שבועת שוא. אכלה עבר על שבועת שוא. לא אכלה. עבר על שבועת בטוי: ",
+ "שבועת בטוי. נוהג באנשים ובנשים ברחוקים ובקרובים. בכשרים ובפסולין. בפני בית דין. ושלא בפני בית דין. מפי עצמו. וחייבין על זדונה מכות. ועל שגגתה קרבן עולה ויורד: ",
+ "שבועת שוא. נוהגת באנשים. ובנשים. ברחוקים. ובקרובים. בכשרים. ובפסולים. בפני בית דין. ושלא בפני בית דין. ומפי עצמו. וחייבין על זדונה מכות. ועל שגגתה פטור. אחת זו ואחת זו המושבע מפי אחרים חייב. כיצד. אמר לא אכלתי היום ולא הנחתי תפילין היום. משביעך אני ואמר אמן חייב: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "שבועת העדות נוהגת באנשים ולא בנשים ברחוקין ולא בקרובין. בכשרים. ולא בפסולין. ואינה נוהגת אלא בראויין להעיד. בפני בית דין ושלא בפני בית דין. מפי עצמו. ומפי אחרים. אין חייבין עד שיכפרו בהן בבית דין. דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים בין מפי עצמו ובין מפי אחרים. אינן חייבין עד שיכפרו בהן בבית דין: ",
+ "וחייבין על זדון השבועה. ועל שגגתה עם זדון העדות. ואינן חייבין על שגגתה. ומה הן חייבין על זדון השבועה. קרבן עולה ויורד: ",
+ "שבועת העדות כיצד. אמר לשנים בואו והעידוני. שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות. או שאמרו לו אין אנו יודעין לך עדות. משביע אני עליכם. ואמרו אמן. הרי אלו חייבין. השביע עליהן חמשה פעמים חוץ לבית דין. ובאו לבית דין והודו פטורים. כפרו. חייבים על כל אחת ואחת. השביע עליהן חמשה פעמים בפני בית דין וכפרו. אינן חייבין אלא אחת. אמר רבי שמעון מה טעם הואיל ואינם יכולים לחזור ולהודות: ",
+ "כפרו שניהן כאחת שניהן חייבין. בזה אחר זה. הראשון חייב. והשני פטור. כפר אחד והודה אחד. הכופר חייב. היו שתי כתי עדים. כפרה הראשונה ואחר כך כפרה השנייה. שתיהן חייבות. מפני שהעדות יכולה להתקיים בשתיהן: ",
+ "משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבואו ותעידוני שיש לי ביד פלוני פקדון. ותשומת יד. וגזל. ואבידה. שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות. אין חייבין אלא אחת. שבועה שאין אנו יודעין. שיש לך ביד פלוני. פקדון. ותשומת יד וגזל ואבידה. חייבין על כל אחת ואחת. משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבואו ותעידוני שיש לי ביד פלוני פקדון חטין ושעורין וכוסמין. שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות אין חייבין אלא אחת. שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות שיש לך ביד פלוני חטין ושעורין וכוסמין. חייבין על כל אחת ואחת: ",
+ "משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבואו ותעידוני שיש לי ביד פלוני נזק וחצי נזק תשלומי כפל תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה ושאנס איש פלוני את בתי ופתה את בתי ושהכני בני. ושחבל בי חברי ושהדליק את גדישי ביום הכפורים. הרי אלו חייבין: ",
+ "משביע אני עליכם אם לא תבואו ותעידוני שאני כהן. שאני לוי. שאיני בן גרושה. שאיני בן חלוצה. שאיש פלוני כהן. שאיש פלוני לוי. שאינו בן גרושה. שאינו בן חלוצה. שאנס איש פלוני את בתו. ופתה את בתו. ושחבל בי בני. ושחבל בי חבירי. ושהדליק גדישי בשבת. הרי אלו פטורין: ",
+ "משביע אני עליכם. אם לא תבואו ותעידוני שאמר איש פלוני ליתן לי מאתים זוז. ולא נתן לי. הרי אלו פטורים. שאין חייבין אלא על תביעת ממון כפקדן: ",
+ "משביע אני עליכם כשתדעון לי עדות שתבואו ותעידוני הרי אלו פטורים. מפני שקדמה שבועה לעדות: ",
+ "עמד בבית הכנסת ואמר משביע אני עליכם שאם אתם יודעים לי עדות שתבואו ותעידוני הרי אלו פטורין. עד שיהיה מתכוין להם: ",
+ "אמר לשנים משביע אני עליכם איש פלוני ופלוני. שאם אתם יודעין לי עדות. שתבואו ותעידוני. שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות. והם יודעין לו עדות. עד מפי עד. או שהיה אחד מהן קרוב או פסול. הרי אלו פטורין: ",
+ "שילח ביד עבדו. או שאמר להן הנתבע. משביע אני עליכם שאם אתם יודעין לו עדות. שתבואו ותעידוהו. הרי אלו פטורין. עד שישמעו מפי התובע: ",
+ "משביע אני עליכם. מצוה אני עליכם. אוסרכם אני. הרי אלו חייבין. בשמים ובארץ. הרי אלו פטורין. באל\"ף דלי\"ת. ביו\"ד ה\"י. בשדי. בצבאות. בחנון ורחום. בארך אפים ורב חסד. ובכל הכנויין. הרי אלו חייבין. המקלל בכולן חייב. דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים פוטרין. המקלל אביו ואמו בכולן חייב דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים פוטרין. המקלל עצמו וחברו בכולן. עובר בלא תעשה. יככה אלהים. וכן יככה אלהים. זו היא אלה הכתובה בתורה. אל יכך. ויברכך. וייטב לך. רבי מאיר מחייב. וחכמים פוטרין: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "שבועת הפקדון. נוהגת באנשים ובנשים. ברחוקים ובקרובים. בכשרים ובפסולים. בפני בית דין ושלא בפני בית דין. מפי עצמו. ומפי אחרים אינו חייב עד שיכפור בו בבית דין. דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים בין מפי עצמו בין מפי אחרים כיון שכפר בו חייב. וחייב על זדון השבועה. ועל שגגתה עם זדון הפקדון. ואינו חייב על שגגתה. ומה חייב על זדונה. אשם בכסף שקלים: ",
+ "שבועת הפקדון כיצד. אמר לו תן לי פקדוני שיש לי בידך. שבועה שאין לך בידי. או שאמר לו אין לך בידי. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. הרי זה חייב. השביע עליו חמשה פעמים. בין בפני בית דין. ובין שלא בפני בית דין. וכפר. חייב על כל אחת ואחת. אמר רבי שמעון מה טעם מפני שיכול לחזור ולהודות: ",
+ "היו חמשה תובעין אותו אמרו לו תן לנו פקדון שיש לנו בידך. שבועה שאין לכם בידי. אינו חייב אלא אחת. שבועה שאין לך בידי. ולא לך. ולא לך. חייב על כל אחת ואחת. רבי אליעזר אומר עד שיאמר שבועה באחרונה. רבי שמעון אומר עד שיאמר שבועה לכל אחד ואחד. תן לי פקדון. ותשומת יד. גזל. ואבדה. שיש לי בידך. שבועה שאין לך בידי. אינו חייב אלא אחת. שבועה שאין לך בידי. פקדון. ותשומת יד. וגזל. ואבדה. חייב על כל אחת ואחת. תן לי חטין. ושעורין. וכוסמים. שיש לי בידך. שבועה שאין לך בידי. אינו חייב אלא אחת. שבועה שאין לך ביד. חטין ושעורין וכוסמין. חייב על כל אחת ואחת. רבי מאיר אומר אפילו אמר חטה. ושעורה. וכוסמת. חייב על כל אחת ואחת: ",
+ "אנסת ופיתית את בתי והוא אומר לא אנסתי. ולא פיתיתי. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. חייב. רבי שמעון פוטר. שאינו משלם קנס על פי עצמו. אמרו לו אף על פי שאינו משלם קנס על פי עצמו. משלם בושת ופגם על פי עצמו: ",
+ "גנבת את שורי. והוא אומר לא גנבתי. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. חייב. גנבתי. אבל לא טבחתי. ולא מכרתי. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. פטור. המית שורך את שורי. והוא אומר לא המית. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. חייב. המית שורך את עבדי. והוא אומר לא המית. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. פטור. אמר לו חבלת בי ועשית בי חבורה. והוא אומר לא חבלתי ולא עשיתי בך חבורה. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. חייב. אמר לו עבדו. הפלת את שיני וסימית את עיני. והוא אומר לא הפלתי. ולא סימיתי. משביעך אני ואמר אמן. פטור. זה הכלל כל המשלם על פי עצמו חייב. ושאינו משלם על פי עצמו. פטור: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "שבועת הדיינין. הטענה שתי כסף. וההודאה בשוה פרוטה ואם אין ההודאה ממין הטענה פטור. כיצד שתי כסף לי בידך. אין לך בידי אלא פרוטה פטור. שתי כסף ופרוטה לי בידך. אין לך בידי אלא פרוטה חייב. מנה לי בידך. אין לך בידי פטור. מנה לי בידך אין לך בידי אלא חמשים דינר. חייב. מנה לאבא בידך. אין לך בידי אלא חמשים דינר פטור. מפני שהוא כמשיב אבידה: ",
+ "מנה לי בידך. אמר לו בפני עדים הן. למחר אמר לו תנהו לי. נתתיו לך פטור. אין לך בידי. חייב. מנה לי בידך. אמר לו הן. אל תתנהו לי אלא בעדים. למחר אמר לו תנהו לי. נתתיו לך. חייב. מפני שצריך ליתנו לו בעדים: ",
+ "ליטרא זהב יש לי בידך. אין לך בידי אלא ליטרא כסף פטור. דינר זהב יש לי בידך. אין לך בידי. אלא דינר כסף. וטריסית. ופונדיון. ופרוטה. חייב. שהכל מין מטבע אחת. כור תבואה יש לי בידך. אין לך בידי אלא לתך קטנית. פטור. כור פירות יש לי בידך. אין לך בידי אלא לתך קטנית. חייב. שהקטנית בכלל פירות. טענו חטין והודה לו בשעורים. פטור. ורבן גמליאל מחייב. הטוען לחברו בכדי שמן. והודה לו בקנקנים. אדמון אומר הואיל והודה לו מקצת ממין הטענה. ישבע. וחכמים אומרים אין ההודאה ממין הטענה. אמר רבן גמליאל רואה אני את דברי אדמון. טענו כלים וקרקעות. והודה בכלים וכפר בקרקעות. בקרקעות וכפר בכלים. פטור. הודה במקצת הקרקעות. פטור. במקצת הכלים. חייב. שהנכסים שאין להם אחריות. זוקקין את הנכסים שיש להן אחריות לישבע עליהן: ",
+ "אין נשבעין על טענת. חרש. שוטה. וקטן. ואין משביעין את הקטן. אבל נשבעים לקטן. ולהקדש: ",
+ "ואלו דברים שאין נשבעין עליהן. העבדים. והשטרות. והקרקעות. וההקדשות. אין בהם תשלומי כפל. ולא תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. שומר חנם אינו נשבע. נושא שכר אינו משלם. רבי שמעון אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותן. נשבעין עליהן. ושאינו חייב באחריותן אין נשבעין עליהן: ",
+ "רבי מאיר אומר יש דברים שהן בקרקע. ואינן כקרקע. ואין חכמים מודים לו. כיצד עשר גפנים טעונות מסרתי לך. והלה אומר אינן אלא חמש. רבי מאיר מחייב שבועה. וחכמים אומרים כל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע. אין נשבעין אלא על דבר שבמדה. ושבמשקל. ושבמנין. כיצד בית מלא מסרתי לך. וכיס מלא מסרתי לך. והלה אומר איני יודע אלא מה שהנחת אתה נוטל. פטור. זה אומר עד הזיז. וזה אומר עד החלון. חייב: ",
+ "המלוה את חבירו על המשכון. ואבד המשכון. אמר לו סלע הלויתיך עליו. ושקל היה שוה. והלה אומר לא כי אלא סלע הלויתני עליו. וסלע היה שוה. פטור. סלע הלויתיך עליו. ושקל היה שוה. והלה אומר. לא כי. אלא סלע הלויתני עליו. ושלשה דינרים היה שוה. חייב. סלע הלויתני עליו. ושתים היה שוה. והלה אומר לא כי. אלא סלע הלויתיך עליו. וסלע היה שוה. פטור. סלע הלויתני עליו. ושתים היה שוה. והלה אומר לא כי. אלא סלע הלויתיך עליו. וחמשה דינרים היה שוה. חייב. ומי נשבע מי שהפקדון אצלו. שמא ישבע זה ויוציא הלה את הפקדון: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "כל הנשבעין שבתורה נשבעין ולא משלמין ואלו נשבעין ונוטלין. השכיר. והנגזל. והנחבל. ושכנגדו חשוד על השבועה. והחנוני על פנקסו. השכיר כיצד. אמר לו תן לי שכרי שיש לי בידך. הוא אומר נתתי. והלה אומר לא נטלתי. הוא נשבע ונוטל. רבי יהודה אומר עד שתהא שם מקצת הודאה. כיצד. אמר לו תן לי שכרי חמשים דינר שיש לי בידך. והוא אומר התקבלת דינר זהב: \n",
+ "הנגזל כיצד. היו מעידין אותו שנכנס לביתו למשכנו שלא ברשות. הוא אומר כליי נטלת. והוא אומר לא נטלתי. הרי זה נשבע ונוטל. רבי יהודה אומר עד שתהא שם מקצת הודאה. כיצד. אמר לו שני כלים נטלת. והוא אומר לא נטלתי אלא אחד: \n",
+ "הנחבל כיצד היו מעידים אותו שנכנס תחת ידו שלם. ויצא חבול. ואמר לו חבלת בי. והוא אומר לא חבלתי. הרי זה נשבע ונוטל. רבי יהודה אומר עד שתהא שם מקצת הודאה. כיצד. אמר לו חבלת בי שתים. והלה אומר לא חבלתי בך אלא אחת: \n",
+ "ושכנגדו חשוד על השבועה. כיצד. אחת שבועת העדות. ואחת שבועת הפקדון. ואפילו שבועת שוא. היה אחד מהן משחק בקוביא. ומלוה ברבית. ומפריחי יונים. וסוחרי שביעית. שכנגדו נשבע ונוטל. היו שניהן חשודין. חזרה השבועה למקומה. דברי רבי יוסי. רבי מאיר אומר יחלוקו: \n",
+ "והחנוני על פנקסו. כיצד. לא שיאמר לו כתוב על פנקסי. שאתה חייב לי מאתים זוז. אלא אמר לו תן לבני סאתים חטין. תן לפועלי בסלע מעות. הוא אומר נתתי. והן אומרים לא נטלנו. הוא נשבע ונוטל. והן נשבעין ונוטלין. אמר בן ננס כיצד. אלו באין לידי שבועת שוא ואלו באין לידי שבועת שוא. אלא הוא נוטל שלא בשבועה והן נוטלין שלא בשבועה: \n",
+ "אמר לחנוני תן לי בדינר פירות. ונתן לו. אמר לו תן לי את הדינר. אמר לו נתתיו לך ונתתו באונפלי. ישבע בעל הבית. נתן לו את הדינר. אמר לו תן לי את הפירות. אמר לו נתתים לך. והולכתן לתוך ביתך. ישבע חנוני. רבי יהודה אומר כל שהפירות בידו. ידו על העליונה. אמר לשולחני תן לי בדינר מעות ונתן לו. אמר לו תן לי את הדינר. אמר לו נתתיו לך. ונתתו באונפלי. ישבע בעל הבית. נתן לו את הדינר. אמר לו תן לי את המעות. אמר לו נתתים לך והשלכתם לתוך כיסך. ישבע שולחני. רבי יהודה אומר אין דרך שולחני ליתן איסר. עד שיטול דינרו: \n",
+ "כשם שאמרו הפוגמת כתובתה לא תפרע אלא בשבועה. ועד אחד מעידה שהיא פרועה לא תפרע אלא בשבועה. מנכסים משועבדים. ומנכסי יתומים לא תפרע אלא בשבועה. והנפרעת שלא בפניו. לא תפרע אלא בשבועה. וכן היתומים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה. שבועה שלא פקדנו אבא ולא אמר לנו אבא. ושלא מצינו בין שטרותיו של אבא ששטר זה פרוע. רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אפילו נולד הבן לאחר מיתת האב. הרי זה נשבע ונוטל. אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אם יש עדים שאמר האב בשעת מיתתו שטר זה אינו פרוע הוא נוטל שלא בשבועה: \n",
+ "ואלו נשבעים שלא בטענה. השותפין. והאריסין. והאפוטרופין. והאשה הנושאת והנותנת בתוך הבית. ובן הבית. אמר לו מה אתה טועניני. רצוני שתשבע לי חייב. חלקו השותפין והאריסין. אין יכול להשביעו. נתגלגלה לו שבועה ממקום אחר מגלגלין עליו את הכל. והשביעית משמטת את השבועה: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "ארבעה שומרין הן. שומר חנם. והשואל. נושא שכר. והשוכר. שומר חנם נשבע על הכל. והשואל משלם את הכל. נושא שכר. והשוכר. נשבעין על השבורה. ועל השבויה. ועל המתה. ומשלמים את האבדה. ואת הגניבה: ",
+ "אמר לשומר חנם. היכן שורי. אמר לו מת. והוא שנשבר או נשבה או נגנב או אבד. נשבר. והוא שמת או נשבה או נגנב או אבד. נשבה. והוא שמת או נשבר או נגנב או אבד. נגנב. והוא שמת או נשבר או נשבה או אבד. אבד. והוא שמת או נשבר או נשבה או נגנב משביעך אני ואמר אמן. פטור: ",
+ "היכן שורי. אמר לו איני יודע מה אתה סח. והוא שמת. או נשבר. או נשבה. או נגנב. או אבד. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. פטור. היכן שורי. אמר לו אבד. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. והעדים מעידין אותו שאכלו. משלם את הקרן. הודה מעצמו משלם קרן וחומש ואשם. היכן שורי אמר לו נגנב. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. והעדים מעידין אותו שגנבו משלם תשלומי כפל. הודה מעצמו. משלם קרן וחומש ואשם: ",
+ "אמר לאחד בשוק היכן שורי שגנבת. והוא אומר לא גנבתי. והעדים מעידין אותו שגנבו משלם תשלומי כפל. טבח ומכר. משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. ראה עדים שממשמשין ובאין. אמר גנבתי. אבל לא טבחתי ולא מכרתי. אינו משלם אלא קרן: ",
+ "אמר לשואל היכן שורי אמר לו מת. והוא שנשבר או נשבה או נגנב. או אבד. נשבר. והוא שמת או נשבה או נגנב או אבד. נשבה. והוא שמת או נשבר או נגנב או אבד. נגנב. והוא שמת או נשבר או נשבה או אבד. אבד. והוא שמת או נשבר או נשבה או נגנב. משביעך אני ואמר אמן. פטור: ",
+ "היכן שורי. אמר לו איני יודע מה אתה סח. והוא שמת. או נשבר. או נשבה. או נגנב. או אבד. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. חייב. אמר לנושא שכר. והשוכר. היכן שורי. אמר לו מת. והוא שנשבר או נשבה. נשבר. והוא שמת או נשבה. נשבה. והוא שמת או נשבר. נגנב. והוא שאבד. אבד. והוא שנגנב. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. פטור. מת. או נשבר. או נשבה. והוא שנגנב. או אבד. משביעך אני. ואמר אמן. חייב. אבד. או נגנב. והוא שמת. או נשבר או נשבה. משביעך אני ואמר אמן. פטור. זה הכלל. כל המשנה מחובה לחובה. ומפטור לפטור. ומפטור לחובה פטור. מחובה לפטור. חייב. זה הכלל. כל הנשבע להקל על עצמו חייב. להחמיר על עצמו. פטור: "
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/Hebrew/Torat Emet 357.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/Hebrew/Torat Emet 357.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f668f3e0b03f2839f4f5a374a426f62901e8152
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/Hebrew/Torat Emet 357.json
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+{
+ "language": "he",
+ "title": "Mishnah Shevuot",
+ "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads",
+ "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 357",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 3.0,
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 357",
+ "actualLanguage": "he",
+ "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+ "isBaseText": true,
+ "isSource": true,
+ "isPrimary": true,
+ "direction": "rtl",
+ "heTitle": "משנה שבועות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע, יְדִיעוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע, יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע, מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵם אַרְבָּעָה: \n",
+ "כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה וִידִיעָה בַסּוֹף וְהֶעְלֵם בֵּינְתַּיִם, הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה וְאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף, שָׂעִיר שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים תּוֹלֶה, עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ וְיָבִיא בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: \n",
+ "אֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף, שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַחוּץ וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כט) מִלְּבַד חַטַּאת הַכִּפֻּרִים, עַל מַה שֶּׁזֶּה מְכַפֵּר, זֶה מְכַפֵּר. מַה הַפְּנִימִי אֵין מְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ יְדִיעָה, אַף הַחִיצוֹן אֵין מְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ יְדִיעָה: \n",
+ "וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף, שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים וּשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים מְכַפְּרִין, אֲבָל לֹא שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים. וְעַל מַה שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִין, עַל הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַשְּׂעִירִים כַּפָּרָתָן שָׁוָה עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִין עַל הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא, וְשֶׁל רְגָלִים מְכַפְּרִין עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף, וְשֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה. אָמַר לָהֶם, יִקְרָבוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין כַּפָּרָתָן שָׁוָה, הֵיאַךְ קְרֵבִין זֶה בָזֶה. אָמַר לָהֶן, כֻּלָּן בָּאִין לְכַפֵּר עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו: \n",
+ "רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ, שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִין עַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא. מוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁל רְגָלִים, שֶׁמְּכַפְּרִין עַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף. מוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, שֶׁהֵן מְכַפְּרִין עַל הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא, וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף, וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה. אָמַר לָהֶם, הֵן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִם כֵּן, יִהְיוּ שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים קְרֵבִין בְּרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים, אֲבָל הֵיאַךְ שֶׁל רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים קְרֵבִין בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לְכַפֵּר כַּפָּרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ. אָמַר לָהֶן, כֻּלָּן בָּאִין לְכַפֵּר עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו: \n",
+ "וְעַל זְדוֹן טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין. וְעַל שְׁאָר עֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, הַקַּלּוֹת וְהַחֲמוּרוֹת, הַזְּדוֹנוֹת וְהַשְּׁגָגוֹת, הוֹדַע וְלֹא הוֹדַע, עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, כְּרֵתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר: \n",
+ "אֶחָד יִשְׂרְאֵלִים, וְאֶחָד כֹּהֲנִים, וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן מָשׁוּחַ. מַה בֵּין יִשְׂרְאֵלִים לְכֹהֲנִים וּלְכֹהֵן מָשׁוּחַ, אֶלָּא שֶׁדַּם הַפָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּךְ דַּם הַפָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁוִּדּוּיוֹ שֶׁל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּךְ וִדּוּיוֹ שֶׁל פָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "יְדִיעוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. נִטְמָא וְיָדַע וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הַטֻּמְאָה וְזָכוּר אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְזָכוּר אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה, נֶעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה וְאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע, וּמִשֶּׁאָכַל יָדַע, הֲרֵי זֶה בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. נִטְמָא וְיָדַע וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טֻמְאָה וְזָכוּר אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְזָכוּר אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה, נֶעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע, וּמִשֶּׁיָּצָא יָדַע, הֲרֵי זֶה בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: \n",
+ "אֶחָד הַנִּכְנָס לָעֲזָרָה וְאֶחָד הַנִּכְנָס לְתוֹסֶפֶת הָעֲזָרָה, שֶׁאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת אֶלָּא בְמֶלֶךְ וְנָבִיא וְאוּרִים וְתֻמִּים וּבְסַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד וּבִשְׁתֵּי תוֹדוֹת וּבְשִׁיר. וּבֵית דִּין מְהַלְּכִין וּשְׁתֵּי תוֹדוֹת אַחֲרֵיהֶם, וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵיהֶם. הַפְּנִימִית נֶאֱכֶלֶת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה נִשְׂרָפֶת. וְכֹל שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה בְכָל אֵלּוּ, הַנִּכְנָס לְשָׁם אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ: \n",
+ "נִטְמָא בָעֲזָרָה וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טֻמְאָה וְזָכוּר אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְזָכוּר לַטֻּמְאָה, נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁהָה בִכְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה, בָּא לוֹ בָאֲרֻכָּה, חַיָּב. בַּקְּצָרָה, פָּטוּר. זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ: \n",
+ "וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּנִּדָּה שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ, הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ נִטְמֵאתִי, וּפֵרַשׁ מִיָּד, חַיָּב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּצִיאָתוֹ הֲנָאָה לוֹ כְּבִיאָתוֹ: \n",
+ "רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְגוֹ' וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ (ויקרא ה), עַל הֶעְלֵם שֶׁרֶץ חַיָּב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא טָמֵא (שם), עַל הֶעְלֵם טֻמְאָה חַיָּב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, וְנֶעְלַם וְנֶעְלַם שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים, לְחַיֵּב עַל הֶעְלֵם טֻמְאָה וְעַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, שֶׁאָכַלְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל וְאָכַל כָּל שֶׁהוּא, חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בְּאוֹכֵל כָּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב, שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּב. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְכִי הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בִּמְדַבֵּר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן, שֶׁזֶּה מְדַבֵּר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה, חַיָּב שְׁתָּיִם: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, וְאָכַל פַּת חִטִּין וּפַת שְׂעֹרִין וּפַת כֻּסְּמִין, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל פַּת חִטִּין וּפַת שְׂעֹרִין וּפַת כֻּסְּמִין, וְאָכַל, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין הַרְבֵּה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה יַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ וְשָׁתָה, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, וְאָכַל אֳכָלִים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁתִיָּה, פָּטוּר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, וְאָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, חַיָּב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר, קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי אִם אָכַלְתִּי הַיּוֹם, וְהוּא אָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, הֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה: \n",
+ "אֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ, וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים, וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ, וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם מַמָּשׁ. כֵּיצַד. אָמַר, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֶתֵּן לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶתֵּן, שֶׁנָּתַתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא נָתַתִּי, שֶׁאִישַׁן וְשֶׁלֹּא אִישַׁן, שֶׁיָּשַׁנְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא יָשַׁנְתִּי, שֶׁאֶזְרֹק צְרוֹר לַיָּם וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶזְרֹק, שֶׁזָּרַקְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא זָרַקְתִּי. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל הֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ה) לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אִם כֵּן אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה, דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה מִנַּיִן. אָמַר לוֹ, מֵרִבּוּי הַכָּתוּב. אָמַר לוֹ, אִם רִבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ, רִבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ: \n",
+ "נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְלֹא בִטֵּל, פָּטוּר. לְקַיֵּם וְלֹא קִיֵּם, פָּטוּר. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא, מָה אִם הָרְשׁוּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֻשְׁבָּע עָלֶיהָ מֵהַר סִינַי, הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ, מִצְוָה שֶׁהוּא מֻשְׁבָּע עָלֶיהָ מֵהַר סִינַי, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִשְׁבוּעַת הָרְשׁוּת, שֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה בָהּ לָאו כְּהֵן, תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת מִצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָהּ לָאו כְּהֵן, שֶׁאִם נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל וְלֹא בִטֵּל, פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכֲלֶנָּה, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכֲלֶנָּה, וַאֲכָלָהּ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. זוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי, שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, חַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "אֵיזוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, נִשְׁבַּע לְשַׁנּוֹת אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ לָאָדָם, אָמַר עַל הָעַמּוּד שֶׁל אֶבֶן שֶׁהוּא שֶׁל זָהָב, וְעַל הָאִישׁ שֶׁהוּא אִשָּׁה, וְעַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא אִישׁ. נִשְׁבַּע עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי גָמָל שֶׁפּוֹרֵחַ בָּאֲוִיר, וְאִם לֹא רָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ כְּקוֹרַת בֵּית הַבַּד. אָמַר לְעֵדִים בֹּאוּ וַהֲעִידוּנִי, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא נְעִידֶךָ. נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה, שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת סֻכָּה, וְשֶׁלֹּא לִטֹּל לוּלָב, וְשֶׁלֹּא לְהָנִיחַ תְּפִלִּין, זוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכֲלֶנָּה, הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. אֲכָלָהּ, עָבַר עַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. לֹא אֲכָלָהּ, עָבַר עַל שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וּבְנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִים וּבִקְרוֹבִים, בִּכְשֵׁרִים וּבִפְסוּלִין, בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וְחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וּבְנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִים וּבִקְרוֹבִים, בִּכְשֵׁרִים וּבִפְסוּלִים, בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, וּמִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וְחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר. אַחַת זוֹ, וְאַחַת זוֹ, הַמֻּשְׁבָּע מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, חַיָּב. כֵּיצַד. אָמַר, לֹא אָכַלְתִּי הַיּוֹם וְלֹא הֵנָחְתִּי תְפִלִּין הַיּוֹם, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא בְנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִין וְלֹא בִקְרוֹבִין, בִּכְשֵׁרִים וְלֹא בִפְסוּלִין. וְאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בָרְאוּיִין לְהָעִיד, בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ, וּמִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, אֵין חַיָּבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בָהֶן בְּבֵית דִּין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ וּבֵין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, אֵינָן חַיָּבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בָהֶן בְּבֵית דִּין: ",
+ "וְחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ עִם זְדוֹן הָעֵדוּת, וְאֵינָן חַיָּבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. וּמַה הֵן חַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה, קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: ",
+ "שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת כֵּיצַד. אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם בֹּאוּ וַהֲעִידוּנִי. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם וְאָמְרוּ אָמֵן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עֲלֵיהֶן חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין וּבָאוּ לְבֵית דִּין וְהוֹדוּ, פְּטוּרִים. כָּפְרוּ, חַיָּבִים עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עֲלֵיהֶן חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְכָפְרוּ, אֵינָן חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַה טַּעַם, הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָם יְכוֹלִין לַחֲזֹר וּלְהוֹדוֹת: ",
+ "כָּפְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת, שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָּבִין. בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּב וְהַשֵּׁנִי פָטוּר. כָּפַר אֶחָד וְהוֹדָה אֶחָד, הַכּוֹפֵר חַיָּב. הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִתֵּי עֵדִים, כָּפְרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּפְרָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה, שְׁתֵּיהֶם חַיָּבוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעֵדוּת יְכוֹלָה לְהִתְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן: ",
+ "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי פִּקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, אֵין חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי פִּקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה, חַיָּבִין עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי פִּקְדוֹן חִטִּין וּשְׂעֹרִין וְכֻסְּמִין. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, אֵין חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעֹרִין וְכֻסְּמִין, חַיָּבִין עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת: ",
+ "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי נֶזֶק וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, וְשֶׁאָנַס אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אֶת בִּתִּי, וּפִתָּה אֶת בִּתִּי, וְשֶׁהִכַּנִי בְנִי, וְשֶׁחָבַל בִּי חֲבֵרִי, וְשֶׁהִדְלִיק אֶת גְּדִישִׁי בְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין: ",
+ "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁאֲנִי כֹהֵן, שֶׁאֲנִי לֵוִי, שֶׁאֵינִי בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה, שֶׁאֵינִי בֶן חֲלוּצָה, שֶׁאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי כֹהֵן, שֶׁאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לֵוִי, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה, שֶׁאָנַס אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וּפִתָּה אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְשֶׁחָבַל בִּי בְנִי, וְשֶׁחָבַל בִּי חֲבֵרִי, וְשֶׁהִדְלִיק גְּדִישִׁי בְשַׁבָּת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין: ",
+ "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁאָמַר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִתֶּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז וְלֹא נָתַן לִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִים, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא עַל תְּבִיעַת מָמוֹן כְּפִקָּדוֹן: ",
+ "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, כְּשֶׁתֵּדְעוּן לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדְמָה שְׁבוּעָה לָעֵדוּת: ",
+ "עָמַד בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאָמַר, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִים לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִתְכַּוֵּן לָהֶם: ",
+ "אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, וְהֵם יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת עֵד מִפִּי עֵד אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין: ",
+ "שִׁלַּח בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן הַנִּתְבָּע מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּהוּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ מִפִּי הַתּוֹבֵעַ: ",
+ "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, מְצַוֶּה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, אוֹסֶרְכֶם אָנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. בְּאל\"ף דל\"ת, בְּיו\"ד ה\"א, בְּשַׁדַּי, בִּצְבָאוֹת, בְּחַנּוּן וְרַחוּם, בְּאֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד, וּבְכָל הַכִּנּוּיִין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. הַמְקַלֵּל בְּכֻלָּן, חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. הַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ בְּכֻלָּן, חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. הַמְקַלֵּל עַצְמוֹ וַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּכֻלָּן, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים, וְכֵן יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים, זוֹ הִיא אָלָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַתּוֹרָה. אַל יַכְּךָ, וִיבָרֶכְךָ, וְיֵיטִיב לְךָ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וּבְנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִים וּבִקְרוֹבִים, בִּכְשֵׁרִים וּבִפְסוּלִים, בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וּמִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּכְפֹּר בּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ בֵּין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּפַר בּוֹ, חַיָּב. וְחַיָּב עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ עִם זְדוֹן הַפִּקָּדוֹן, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. וּמַה חַיָּב עַל זְדוֹנָהּ, אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן כֵּיצַד. אָמַר לוֹ, תֶּן לִי פִקְדוֹנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עָלָיו חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים, בֵּין בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, וְכָפַר, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַה טַּעַם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְהוֹדוֹת: \n",
+ "הָיוּ חֲמִשָּׁה תוֹבְעִין אוֹתוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ תֶּן לָנוּ פִקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָנוּ בְיָדֶךָ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם בְּיָדִי, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי וְלֹא לְךָ וְלֹא לְךָ, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר שְׁבוּעָה בָאַחֲרוֹנָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר שְׁבוּעָה לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. תֶּן לִי פִקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד גָּזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי פִקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. תֶּן לִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעֹרִין וְכֻסְּמִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעֹרִין וְכֻסְּמִים, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר חִטָּה וּשְׂעֹרָה וְכֻסֶּמֶת, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת: \n",
+ "אָנַסְתָּ וּפִתִּיתָ אֶת בִּתִּי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא אָנַסְתִּי וְלֹא פִתִּיתִי. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם בּשֶׁת וּפְגָם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ: \n",
+ "גָּנַבְתָּ אֶת שׁוֹרִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא גָנַבְתִּי, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב. גָּנַבְתִּי אֲבָל לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכָרְתִּי, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר. הֵמִית שׁוֹרְךָ אֶת שׁוֹרִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הֵמִית, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב. הֵמִית שׁוֹרְךָ אֶת עַבְדִּי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הֵמִית, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר. אָמַר לוֹ, חָבַלְתָּ בִי וְעָשִׂיתָ בִּי חַבּוּרָה, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָבַלְתִּי וְלֹא עָשִׂיתִי בְךָ חַבּוּרָה, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב. אָמַר לוֹ עַבְדּוֹ, הִפַּלְתָּ אֶת שִׁנִּי וְסִמִּיתָ אֶת עֵינִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הִפַּלְתִּי וְלֹא סִמִּיתִי, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, חַיָּב. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, פָּטוּר: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּנִין, הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף, וְהַהוֹדָאָה בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְאִם אֵין הַהוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה, פָּטוּר. כֵּיצַד, שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה, פָּטוּר. שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף וּפְרוּטָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה, חַיָּב. מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, פָּטוּר. מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר, חַיָּב. מָנֶה לְאַבָּא בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר, פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה: \n",
+ "מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אָמַר לוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים הֵן. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵהוּ לִי. נְתַתִּיו לָךְ, פָּטוּר. אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, חַיָּב. מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אָמַר לוֹ הֵן, אַל תִּתְּנֵהוּ לִי אֶלָּא בְעֵדִים. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵהוּ לִי, נְתַתִּיו לָךְ, חַיָּב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִתְּנוֹ לוֹ בְעֵדִים: \n",
+ "לִיטְרָא זָהָב יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא לִיטְרָא כֶסֶף, פָּטוּר. דִּינַר זָהָב יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא דִּינַר כֶּסֶף, וּטְרִיסִית וּפֻנְדְּיוֹן וּפְרוּטָה, חַיָּב, שֶׁהַכֹּל מִין מַטְבֵּעַ אַחַת. כּוֹר תְּבוּאָה יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ קִטְנִית, פָּטוּר. כּוֹר פֵּרוֹת יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ קִטְנִית, חַיָּב, שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית בִּכְלַל פֵּרוֹת. טְעָנוֹ חִטִּין, וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִשְׂעֹרִים, פָּטוּר. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מְחַיֵּב. הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בַקַּנְקַנִּים, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה לוֹ מִקְצָת מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה, יִשָּׁבֵעַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין הַהוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן. טְעָנוֹ כֵלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת, וְהוֹדָה בַכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת, בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בַּכֵּלִים, פָּטוּר. הוֹדָה בְמִקְצָת הַקַּרְקָעוֹת, פָּטוּר. בְּמִקְצָת הַכֵּלִים, חַיָּב, שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת זוֹקְקִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן: \n",
+ "אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַקָּטָן, אֲבָל נִשְׁבָּעִים לַקָּטָן וְלַהֶקְדֵּשׁ: \n",
+ "וְאֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, הָעֲבָדִים, וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת, וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. אֵין בָּהֶן תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְלֹא תַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, קָדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶם: \n",
+ "רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כַּקַּרְקַע וְאֵינָן כַּקַּרְקַע, וְאֵין חֲכָמִים מוֹדִים לוֹ. כֵּיצַד, עֶשֶׂר גְּפָנִים טְעוּנוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵינָן אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, כָּל הַמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי הוּא כַקַּרְקַע. אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁבַּמִּדָּה וְשֶׁבַּמִּשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבַּמִּנְיָן. כֵּיצַד, בַּיִת מָלֵא מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ וְכִיס מָלֵא מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁהִנַּחְתָּ אַתָּה נוֹטֵל, פָּטוּר. זֶה אוֹמֵר עַד הַזִּיז וְזֶה אוֹמֵר עַד הַחַלּוֹן, חַיָּב: \n",
+ "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְאָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, אָמַר לוֹ סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה, פָּטוּר. סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁלשָׁה דִינָרִים הָיָה שָׁוֶה, חַיָּב. סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה, פָּטוּר. סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וַחֲמִשָּׁה דִינָרִים הָיָה שָׁוֶה, חַיָּב. וּמִי נִשְׁבָּע, מִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׁבַע זֶה וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, נִשְׁבָּעִין וְלֹא מְשַׁלְּמִין. וְאֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין, הַשָּׂכִיר, וְהַנִּגְזָל, וְהַנֶּחְבָּל, וְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה, וְהַחֶנְוָנִי עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ. הַשָּׂכִיר כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי שְׂכָרִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, הוּא אוֹמֵר נָתַתִּי, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי, הוּא נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָאָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי שְׂכָרִי חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר הִתְקַבַּלְתָּ דִינַר זָהָב: \n",
+ "הַנִּגְזָל כֵּיצַד, הָיוּ מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵיתוֹ לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, הוּא אוֹמֵר כֵּלַי נָטַלְתָּ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי, הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָאָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵלִים נָטַלְתָּ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי אֶלָּא אֶחָד: \n",
+ "הַנֶּחְבָּל כֵּיצַד, הָיוּ מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס תַּחַת יָדוֹ שָׁלֵם וְיָצָא חָבוּל, וְאָמַר לוֹ חָבַלְתָּ בִּי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָבַלְתִּי, הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָאָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ חָבַלְתָּ בִּי שְׁתַּיִם, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא חָבַלְתִּי בְךָ אֶלָּא אֶחָת: \n",
+ "וְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה כֵּיצַד, אַחַת שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת וְאַחַת שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מְשַׂחֵק בְּקֻבְיָא, וּמַלְוֶה בְרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית, שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חֲשׁוּדִין, חָזְרָה הַשְּׁבוּעָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, יַחֲלֹקוּ: \n",
+ "וְהַחֶנְוָנִי עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ כֵּיצַד, לֹא שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ כָּתוּב עַל פִּנְקָסִי שֶׁאַתָּה חַיָּב לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז, אֶלָּא אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִבְנִי סָאתַיִם חִטִּין, תֵּן לְפוֹעֲלִי בְּסֶלַע מָעוֹת, הוּא אוֹמֵר נָתַתִּי וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים לֹא נָטַלְנוּ, (שְׁנֵיהֶן נִשְׁבָּעִים), הוּא נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל וְהֵן נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין. אָמַר בֶּן נַנָּס, כֵּיצַד אֵלּוּ בָאִין לִידֵי שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא וְאֵלּוּ בָאִין לִידֵי שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, אֶלָּא הוּא נוֹטֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה וְהֵן נוֹטְלִין שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה: \n",
+ "אָמַר לַחֶנְוָנִי תֶּן לִי בְדִינָר פֵּרוֹת וְנָתַן לוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּיו לְךָ וּנְתַתּוֹ בָאֹנְפָּלִי, יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּים לְךָ וְהוֹלַכְתָּן לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ, יִשָּׁבַע חֶנְוָנִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כָּל שֶׁהַפֵּרוֹת בְּיָדוֹ, יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. אָמַר לַשֻּׁלְחָנִי תֶּן לִי בְדִינָר מָעוֹת וְנָתַן לוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּיו לְךָ וּנְתַתּוֹ בָאֹנְפָּלִי, יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַמָּעוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּים לְךָ וְהִשְׁלַכְתָּם לְתוֹךְ כִּיסֶךָ, יִשָּׁבַע שֻׁלְחָנִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵין דֶּרֶךְ שֻׁלְחָנִי לִתֵּן אִסָּר עַד שֶׁיִּטֹּל דִּינָרוֹ: \n",
+ "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמְרוּ, הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה, וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים וּמִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְהַנִּפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן הַיְתוֹמִים לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פְקָדָנוּ אַבָּא, וְלֹא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא, וְשֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בֵין שְׁטָרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָרוּעַ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ נוֹלַד הַבֵּן לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב, הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁאָמַר הָאָב בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה אֵינוֹ פָרוּעַ, הוּא נוֹטֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה: \n",
+ "וְאֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִים שֶׁלֹּא בְטַעֲנָה, הַשֻּׁתָּפִין, וְהָאֲרִיסִין, וְהָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַנּוֹשֵׂאת וְהַנּוֹתֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וּבֶן הַבָּיִת. אָמַר לוֹ מָה אַתָּה טוֹעֲנֵנִי, רְצוֹנִי שֶׁתִּשָּׁבַע לִי, חַיָּב. חָלְקוּ הַשֻּׁתָּפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין, אֵין יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. נִתְגַּלְגְּלָה לוֹ שְׁבוּעָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּל. וְהַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמֶּטֶת אֶת הַשְּׁבוּעָה: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין הֵן, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע עַל הַכֹּל. וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל הַשְּׁבוּרָה וְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְעַל הַמֵּתָה, וּמְשַׁלְּמִים אֶת הָאֲבֵדָה וְאֶת הַגְּנֵבָה: \n",
+ "אָמַר לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ מֵת, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִשְׁבָּר, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִשְׁבָּה, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִגְנָב, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ אָבַד. אָבַד, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה אַתָּה סָח, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר. הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ נִגְנָב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם: \n",
+ "אָמַר לְאֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי שֶׁגָּנַבְתָּ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא גָנַבְתִּי, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. טָבַח וּמָכַר, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. רָאָה עֵדִים שֶׁמְּמַשְׁמְשִׁין וּבָאִין, אָמַר גָּנַבְתִּי אֲבָל לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכָרְתִּי, אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן: \n",
+ "אָמַר לַשּׁוֹאֵל הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ מֵת, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִשְׁבָּר, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִשְׁבָּה, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִגְנָב, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ אָבַד. אָבַד, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה אַתָּה סָח, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב. אָמַר לַנּוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ מֵת, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה. נִשְׁבָּר, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה. נִשְׁבָּה, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר. נִגְנָב, וְהוּא שֶׁאָבַד. אָבַד, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר. מֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב. אָבַד, אוֹ נִגְנָב, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה מֵחוֹבָה לְחוֹבָה וּמִפְּטוֹר לִפְטוֹר וּמִפְּטוֹר לְחוֹבָה, פָּטוּר. מֵחוֹבָה לִפְטוֹר, חַיָּב. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּע לְהָקֵל עַל עַצְמוֹ, חַיָּב. לְהַחְמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ, פָּטוּר: \n"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/Hebrew/merged.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/Hebrew/merged.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2257bbb97889edc735139c677d49bf2b425fecd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Shevuot/Hebrew/merged.json
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+{
+ "title": "Mishnah Shevuot",
+ "language": "he",
+ "versionTitle": "merged",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Shevuot",
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע, יְדִיעוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע, יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע, מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵם אַרְבָּעָה: \n",
+ "כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה וִידִיעָה בַסּוֹף וְהֶעְלֵם בֵּינְתַּיִם, הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה וְאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף, שָׂעִיר שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים תּוֹלֶה, עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ וְיָבִיא בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: \n",
+ "אֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף, שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַחוּץ וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כט) מִלְּבַד חַטַּאת הַכִּפֻּרִים, עַל מַה שֶּׁזֶּה מְכַפֵּר, זֶה מְכַפֵּר. מַה הַפְּנִימִי אֵין מְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ יְדִיעָה, אַף הַחִיצוֹן אֵין מְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ יְדִיעָה: \n",
+ "וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף, שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים וּשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים מְכַפְּרִין, אֲבָל לֹא שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים. וְעַל מַה שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִין, עַל הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַשְּׂעִירִים כַּפָּרָתָן שָׁוָה עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִין עַל הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא, וְשֶׁל רְגָלִים מְכַפְּרִין עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף, וְשֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר עַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה. אָמַר לָהֶם, יִקְרָבוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין כַּפָּרָתָן שָׁוָה, הֵיאַךְ קְרֵבִין זֶה בָזֶה. אָמַר לָהֶן, כֻּלָּן בָּאִין לְכַפֵּר עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו: \n",
+ "רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ, שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִין עַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא. מוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁל רְגָלִים, שֶׁמְּכַפְּרִין עַל טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף. מוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, שֶׁהֵן מְכַפְּרִין עַל הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא, וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַסּוֹף, וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל יֶשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַסּוֹף. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה. אָמַר לָהֶם, הֵן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִם כֵּן, יִהְיוּ שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים קְרֵבִין בְּרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים, אֲבָל הֵיאַךְ שֶׁל רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים קְרֵבִין בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לְכַפֵּר כַּפָּרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלָּהּ. אָמַר לָהֶן, כֻּלָּן בָּאִין לְכַפֵּר עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו: \n",
+ "וְעַל זְדוֹן טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין. וְעַל שְׁאָר עֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, הַקַּלּוֹת וְהַחֲמוּרוֹת, הַזְּדוֹנוֹת וְהַשְּׁגָגוֹת, הוֹדַע וְלֹא הוֹדַע, עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, כְּרֵתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר: \n",
+ "אֶחָד יִשְׂרְאֵלִים, וְאֶחָד כֹּהֲנִים, וְאֶחָד כֹּהֵן מָשׁוּחַ. מַה בֵּין יִשְׂרְאֵלִים לְכֹהֲנִים וּלְכֹהֵן מָשׁוּחַ, אֶלָּא שֶׁדַּם הַפָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּךְ דַּם הַפָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁוִּדּוּיוֹ שֶׁל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּךְ וִדּוּיוֹ שֶׁל פָּר מְכַפֵּר עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "יְדִיעוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. נִטְמָא וְיָדַע וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הַטֻּמְאָה וְזָכוּר אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְזָכוּר אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה, נֶעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה וְאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע, וּמִשֶּׁאָכַל יָדַע, הֲרֵי זֶה בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. נִטְמָא וְיָדַע וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טֻמְאָה וְזָכוּר אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְזָכוּר אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה, נֶעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע, וּמִשֶּׁיָּצָא יָדַע, הֲרֵי זֶה בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: \n",
+ "אֶחָד הַנִּכְנָס לָעֲזָרָה וְאֶחָד הַנִּכְנָס לְתוֹסֶפֶת הָעֲזָרָה, שֶׁאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת אֶלָּא בְמֶלֶךְ וְנָבִיא וְאוּרִים וְתֻמִּים וּבְסַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד וּבִשְׁתֵּי תוֹדוֹת וּבְשִׁיר. וּבֵית דִּין מְהַלְּכִין וּשְׁתֵּי תוֹדוֹת אַחֲרֵיהֶם, וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵיהֶם. הַפְּנִימִית נֶאֱכֶלֶת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה נִשְׂרָפֶת. וְכֹל שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה בְכָל אֵלּוּ, הַנִּכְנָס לְשָׁם אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ: \n",
+ "נִטְמָא בָעֲזָרָה וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טֻמְאָה וְזָכוּר אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְזָכוּר לַטֻּמְאָה, נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁהָה בִכְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה, בָּא לוֹ בָאֲרֻכָּה, חַיָּב. בַּקְּצָרָה, פָּטוּר. זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ: \n",
+ "וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּנִּדָּה שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ, הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ נִטְמֵאתִי, וּפֵרַשׁ מִיָּד, חַיָּב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּצִיאָתוֹ הֲנָאָה לוֹ כְּבִיאָתוֹ: \n",
+ "רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְגוֹ' וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ (ויקרא ה), עַל הֶעְלֵם שֶׁרֶץ חַיָּב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא טָמֵא (שם), עַל הֶעְלֵם טֻמְאָה חַיָּב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, וְנֶעְלַם וְנֶעְלַם שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים, לְחַיֵּב עַל הֶעְלֵם טֻמְאָה וְעַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, שֶׁאָכַלְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל וְאָכַל כָּל שֶׁהוּא, חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בְּאוֹכֵל כָּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב, שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּב. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְכִי הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בִּמְדַבֵּר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן, שֶׁזֶּה מְדַבֵּר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה, חַיָּב שְׁתָּיִם: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, וְאָכַל פַּת חִטִּין וּפַת שְׂעֹרִין וּפַת כֻּסְּמִין, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל פַּת חִטִּין וּפַת שְׂעֹרִין וּפַת כֻּסְּמִין, וְאָכַל, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין הַרְבֵּה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה יַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ וְשָׁתָה, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, וְאָכַל אֳכָלִים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁתִיָּה, פָּטוּר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, וְאָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, חַיָּב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר, קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי אִם אָכַלְתִּי הַיּוֹם, וְהוּא אָכַל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, הֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה: \n",
+ "אֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ, וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים, וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ, וְאֶחָד דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם מַמָּשׁ. כֵּיצַד. אָמַר, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֶתֵּן לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶתֵּן, שֶׁנָּתַתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא נָתַתִּי, שֶׁאִישַׁן וְשֶׁלֹּא אִישַׁן, שֶׁיָּשַׁנְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא יָשַׁנְתִּי, שֶׁאֶזְרֹק צְרוֹר לַיָּם וְשֶׁלֹּא אֶזְרֹק, שֶׁזָּרַקְתִּי וְשֶׁלֹּא זָרַקְתִּי. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל הֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ה) לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אִם כֵּן אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה, דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן הֲרָעָה וַהֲטָבָה מִנַּיִן. אָמַר לוֹ, מֵרִבּוּי הַכָּתוּב. אָמַר לוֹ, אִם רִבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ, רִבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְכָךְ: \n",
+ "נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְלֹא בִטֵּל, פָּטוּר. לְקַיֵּם וְלֹא קִיֵּם, פָּטוּר. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא, מָה אִם הָרְשׁוּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֻשְׁבָּע עָלֶיהָ מֵהַר סִינַי, הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ, מִצְוָה שֶׁהוּא מֻשְׁבָּע עָלֶיהָ מֵהַר סִינַי, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִשְׁבוּעַת הָרְשׁוּת, שֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה בָהּ לָאו כְּהֵן, תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת מִצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָהּ לָאו כְּהֵן, שֶׁאִם נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל וְלֹא בִטֵּל, פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכֲלֶנָּה, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכֲלֶנָּה, וַאֲכָלָהּ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. זוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי, שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, חַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "אֵיזוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, נִשְׁבַּע לְשַׁנּוֹת אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ לָאָדָם, אָמַר עַל הָעַמּוּד שֶׁל אֶבֶן שֶׁהוּא שֶׁל זָהָב, וְעַל הָאִישׁ שֶׁהוּא אִשָּׁה, וְעַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא אִישׁ. נִשְׁבַּע עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי גָמָל שֶׁפּוֹרֵחַ בָּאֲוִיר, וְאִם לֹא רָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ כְּקוֹרַת בֵּית הַבַּד. אָמַר לְעֵדִים בֹּאוּ וַהֲעִידוּנִי, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא נְעִידֶךָ. נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה, שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת סֻכָּה, וְשֶׁלֹּא לִטֹּל לוּלָב, וְשֶׁלֹּא לְהָנִיחַ תְּפִלִּין, זוֹ הִיא שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֹכַל כִּכָּר זוֹ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכֲלֶנָּה, הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. אֲכָלָהּ, עָבַר עַל שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. לֹא אֲכָלָהּ, עָבַר עַל שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וּבְנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִים וּבִקְרוֹבִים, בִּכְשֵׁרִים וּבִפְסוּלִין, בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וְחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וּבְנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִים וּבִקְרוֹבִים, בִּכְשֵׁרִים וּבִפְסוּלִים, בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, וּמִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וְחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ מַכּוֹת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ פָּטוּר. אַחַת זוֹ, וְאַחַת זוֹ, הַמֻּשְׁבָּע מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, חַיָּב. כֵּיצַד. אָמַר, לֹא אָכַלְתִּי הַיּוֹם וְלֹא הֵנָחְתִּי תְפִלִּין הַיּוֹם, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא בְנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִין וְלֹא בִקְרוֹבִין, בִּכְשֵׁרִים וְלֹא בִפְסוּלִין. וְאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בָרְאוּיִין לְהָעִיד, בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ, וּמִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, אֵין חַיָּבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בָהֶן בְּבֵית דִּין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ וּבֵין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, אֵינָן חַיָּבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בָהֶן בְּבֵית דִּין: ",
+ "וְחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ עִם זְדוֹן הָעֵדוּת, וְאֵינָן חַיָּבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. וּמַה הֵן חַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה, קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: ",
+ "שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת כֵּיצַד. אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם בֹּאוּ וַהֲעִידוּנִי. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם וְאָמְרוּ אָמֵן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עֲלֵיהֶן חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין וּבָאוּ לְבֵית דִּין וְהוֹדוּ, פְּטוּרִים. כָּפְרוּ, חַיָּבִים עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עֲלֵיהֶן חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְכָפְרוּ, אֵינָן חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַה טַּעַם, הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָם יְכוֹלִין לַחֲזֹר וּלְהוֹדוֹת: ",
+ "כָּפְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת, שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָּבִין. בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּב וְהַשֵּׁנִי פָטוּר. כָּפַר אֶחָד וְהוֹדָה אֶחָד, הַכּוֹפֵר חַיָּב. הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִתֵּי עֵדִים, כָּפְרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּפְרָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה, שְׁתֵּיהֶם חַיָּבוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעֵדוּת יְכוֹלָה לְהִתְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן: ",
+ "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי פִּקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, אֵין חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי פִּקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה, חַיָּבִין עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי פִּקְדוֹן חִטִּין וּשְׂעֹרִין וְכֻסְּמִין. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, אֵין חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעֹרִין וְכֻסְּמִין, חַיָּבִין עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת: ",
+ "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיַד פְּלוֹנִי נֶזֶק וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, וְשֶׁאָנַס אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אֶת בִּתִּי, וּפִתָּה אֶת בִּתִּי, וְשֶׁהִכַּנִי בְנִי, וְשֶׁחָבַל בִּי חֲבֵרִי, וְשֶׁהִדְלִיק אֶת גְּדִישִׁי בְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין: ",
+ "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁאֲנִי כֹהֵן, שֶׁאֲנִי לֵוִי, שֶׁאֵינִי בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה, שֶׁאֵינִי בֶן חֲלוּצָה, שֶׁאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי כֹהֵן, שֶׁאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לֵוִי, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה, שֶׁאָנַס אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וּפִתָּה אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְשֶׁחָבַל בִּי בְנִי, וְשֶׁחָבַל בִּי חֲבֵרִי, וְשֶׁהִדְלִיק גְּדִישִׁי בְשַׁבָּת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין: ",
+ "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, אִם לֹא תָבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי שֶׁאָמַר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִתֶּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז וְלֹא נָתַן לִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִים, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא עַל תְּבִיעַת מָמוֹן כְּפִקָּדוֹן: ",
+ "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, כְּשֶׁתֵּדְעוּן לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדְמָה שְׁבוּעָה לָעֵדוּת: ",
+ "עָמַד בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאָמַר, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִים לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִתְכַּוֵּן לָהֶם: ",
+ "אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, וְהֵם יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת עֵד מִפִּי עֵד אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין: ",
+ "שִׁלַּח בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן הַנִּתְבָּע מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּהוּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ מִפִּי הַתּוֹבֵעַ: ",
+ "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, מְצַוֶּה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, אוֹסֶרְכֶם אָנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. בְּאל\"ף דל\"ת, בְּיו\"ד ה\"א, בְּשַׁדַּי, בִּצְבָאוֹת, בְּחַנּוּן וְרַחוּם, בְּאֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד, וּבְכָל הַכִּנּוּיִין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. הַמְקַלֵּל בְּכֻלָּן, חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. הַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ בְּכֻלָּן, חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. הַמְקַלֵּל עַצְמוֹ וַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּכֻלָּן, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים, וְכֵן יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים, זוֹ הִיא אָלָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַתּוֹרָה. אַל יַכְּךָ, וִיבָרֶכְךָ, וְיֵיטִיב לְךָ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: "
+ ],
+ [
+ "שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וּבְנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִים וּבִקְרוֹבִים, בִּכְשֵׁרִים וּבִפְסוּלִים, בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וּמִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּכְפֹּר בּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ בֵּין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּפַר בּוֹ, חַיָּב. וְחַיָּב עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ עִם זְדוֹן הַפִּקָּדוֹן, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. וּמַה חַיָּב עַל זְדוֹנָהּ, אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים: \n",
+ "שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן כֵּיצַד. אָמַר לוֹ, תֶּן לִי פִקְדוֹנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עָלָיו חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים, בֵּין בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, וְכָפַר, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַה טַּעַם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְהוֹדוֹת: \n",
+ "הָיוּ חֲמִשָּׁה תוֹבְעִין אוֹתוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ תֶּן לָנוּ פִקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָנוּ בְיָדֶךָ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם בְּיָדִי, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי וְלֹא לְךָ וְלֹא לְךָ, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר שְׁבוּעָה בָאַחֲרוֹנָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר שְׁבוּעָה לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. תֶּן לִי פִקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד גָּזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי פִקָּדוֹן וּתְשׂוּמֶת יָד וְגָזֵל וַאֲבֵדָה, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. תֶּן לִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעֹרִין וְכֻסְּמִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי חִטִּין וּשְׂעֹרִין וְכֻסְּמִים, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר חִטָּה וּשְׂעֹרָה וְכֻסֶּמֶת, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת: \n",
+ "אָנַסְתָּ וּפִתִּיתָ אֶת בִּתִּי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא אָנַסְתִּי וְלֹא פִתִּיתִי. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם בּשֶׁת וּפְגָם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ: \n",
+ "גָּנַבְתָּ אֶת שׁוֹרִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא גָנַבְתִּי, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב. גָּנַבְתִּי אֲבָל לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכָרְתִּי, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר. הֵמִית שׁוֹרְךָ אֶת שׁוֹרִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הֵמִית, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב. הֵמִית שׁוֹרְךָ אֶת עַבְדִּי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הֵמִית, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר. אָמַר לוֹ, חָבַלְתָּ בִי וְעָשִׂיתָ בִּי חַבּוּרָה, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָבַלְתִּי וְלֹא עָשִׂיתִי בְךָ חַבּוּרָה, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב. אָמַר לוֹ עַבְדּוֹ, הִפַּלְתָּ אֶת שִׁנִּי וְסִמִּיתָ אֶת עֵינִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא הִפַּלְתִּי וְלֹא סִמִּיתִי, מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, חַיָּב. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, פָּטוּר: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּנִין, הַטַּעֲנָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף, וְהַהוֹדָאָה בְּשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְאִם אֵין הַהוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה, פָּטוּר. כֵּיצַד, שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה, פָּטוּר. שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף וּפְרוּטָה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא פְרוּטָה, חַיָּב. מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, פָּטוּר. מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר, חַיָּב. מָנֶה לְאַבָּא בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר, פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה: \n",
+ "מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אָמַר לוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים הֵן. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵהוּ לִי. נְתַתִּיו לָךְ, פָּטוּר. אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי, חַיָּב. מָנֶה לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אָמַר לוֹ הֵן, אַל תִּתְּנֵהוּ לִי אֶלָּא בְעֵדִים. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵהוּ לִי, נְתַתִּיו לָךְ, חַיָּב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִתְּנוֹ לוֹ בְעֵדִים: \n",
+ "לִיטְרָא זָהָב יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא לִיטְרָא כֶסֶף, פָּטוּר. דִּינַר זָהָב יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא דִּינַר כֶּסֶף, וּטְרִיסִית וּפֻנְדְּיוֹן וּפְרוּטָה, חַיָּב, שֶׁהַכֹּל מִין מַטְבֵּעַ אַחַת. כּוֹר תְּבוּאָה יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ קִטְנִית, פָּטוּר. כּוֹר פֵּרוֹת יֶשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, אֵין לְךָ בְיָדִי אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ קִטְנִית, חַיָּב, שֶׁהַקִּטְנִית בִּכְלַל פֵּרוֹת. טְעָנוֹ חִטִּין, וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בִשְׂעֹרִים, פָּטוּר. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מְחַיֵּב. הַטּוֹעֵן לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן וְהוֹדָה לוֹ בַקַּנְקַנִּים, אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, הוֹאִיל וְהוֹדָה לוֹ מִקְצָת מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה, יִשָּׁבֵעַ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין הַהוֹדָאָה מִמִּין הַטַּעֲנָה. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן. טְעָנוֹ כֵלִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת, וְהוֹדָה בַכֵּלִים וְכָפַר בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת, בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת וְכָפַר בַּכֵּלִים, פָּטוּר. הוֹדָה בְמִקְצָת הַקַּרְקָעוֹת, פָּטוּר. בְּמִקְצָת הַכֵּלִים, חַיָּב, שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת זוֹקְקִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת לִשָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן: \n",
+ "אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל טַעֲנַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַקָּטָן, אֲבָל נִשְׁבָּעִים לַקָּטָן וְלַהֶקְדֵּשׁ: \n",
+ "וְאֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, הָעֲבָדִים, וְהַשְּׁטָרוֹת, וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת, וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. אֵין בָּהֶן תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְלֹא תַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, קָדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶם: \n",
+ "רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כַּקַּרְקַע וְאֵינָן כַּקַּרְקַע, וְאֵין חֲכָמִים מוֹדִים לוֹ. כֵּיצַד, עֶשֶׂר גְּפָנִים טְעוּנוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵינָן אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, כָּל הַמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי הוּא כַקַּרְקַע. אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁבַּמִּדָּה וְשֶׁבַּמִּשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבַּמִּנְיָן. כֵּיצַד, בַּיִת מָלֵא מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ וְכִיס מָלֵא מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁהִנַּחְתָּ אַתָּה נוֹטֵל, פָּטוּר. זֶה אוֹמֵר עַד הַזִּיז וְזֶה אוֹמֵר עַד הַחַלּוֹן, חַיָּב: \n",
+ "הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְאָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, אָמַר לוֹ סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה, פָּטוּר. סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְשֶׁקֶל הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁלשָׁה דִינָרִים הָיָה שָׁוֶה, חַיָּב. סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וְסֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה, פָּטוּר. סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו וּשְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו וַחֲמִשָּׁה דִינָרִים הָיָה שָׁוֶה, חַיָּב. וּמִי נִשְׁבָּע, מִי שֶׁהַפִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלוֹ, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׁבַע זֶה וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, נִשְׁבָּעִין וְלֹא מְשַׁלְּמִין. וְאֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין, הַשָּׂכִיר, וְהַנִּגְזָל, וְהַנֶּחְבָּל, וְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה, וְהַחֶנְוָנִי עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ. הַשָּׂכִיר כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי שְׂכָרִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, הוּא אוֹמֵר נָתַתִּי, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי, הוּא נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָאָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי שְׂכָרִי חֲמִשִּׁים דִּינָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדֶךָ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר הִתְקַבַּלְתָּ דִינַר זָהָב: \n",
+ "הַנִּגְזָל כֵּיצַד, הָיוּ מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵיתוֹ לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, הוּא אוֹמֵר כֵּלַי נָטַלְתָּ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי, הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָאָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵלִים נָטַלְתָּ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נָטַלְתִּי אֶלָּא אֶחָד: \n",
+ "הַנֶּחְבָּל כֵּיצַד, הָיוּ מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס תַּחַת יָדוֹ שָׁלֵם וְיָצָא חָבוּל, וְאָמַר לוֹ חָבַלְתָּ בִּי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא חָבַלְתִּי, הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שָׁם מִקְצָת הוֹדָאָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ חָבַלְתָּ בִּי שְׁתַּיִם, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לֹא חָבַלְתִּי בְךָ אֶלָּא אֶחָת: \n",
+ "וְשֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ חָשׁוּד עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה כֵּיצַד, אַחַת שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת וְאַחַת שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מְשַׂחֵק בְּקֻבְיָא, וּמַלְוֶה בְרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית, שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן חֲשׁוּדִין, חָזְרָה הַשְּׁבוּעָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, יַחֲלֹקוּ: \n",
+ "וְהַחֶנְוָנִי עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ כֵּיצַד, לֹא שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ כָּתוּב עַל פִּנְקָסִי שֶׁאַתָּה חַיָּב לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז, אֶלָּא אָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִבְנִי סָאתַיִם חִטִּין, תֵּן לְפוֹעֲלִי בְּסֶלַע מָעוֹת, הוּא אוֹמֵר נָתַתִּי וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים לֹא נָטַלְנוּ, (שְׁנֵיהֶן נִשְׁבָּעִים), הוּא נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל וְהֵן נִשְׁבָּעִין וְנוֹטְלִין. אָמַר בֶּן נַנָּס, כֵּיצַד אֵלּוּ בָאִין לִידֵי שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא וְאֵלּוּ בָאִין לִידֵי שְׁבוּעַת שָׁוְא, אֶלָּא הוּא נוֹטֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה וְהֵן נוֹטְלִין שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה: \n",
+ "אָמַר לַחֶנְוָנִי תֶּן לִי בְדִינָר פֵּרוֹת וְנָתַן לוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּיו לְךָ וּנְתַתּוֹ בָאֹנְפָּלִי, יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּים לְךָ וְהוֹלַכְתָּן לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ, יִשָּׁבַע חֶנְוָנִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כָּל שֶׁהַפֵּרוֹת בְּיָדוֹ, יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. אָמַר לַשֻּׁלְחָנִי תֶּן לִי בְדִינָר מָעוֹת וְנָתַן לוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּיו לְךָ וּנְתַתּוֹ בָאֹנְפָּלִי, יִשָּׁבַע בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַדִּינָר, אָמַר לוֹ תֶּן לִי אֶת הַמָּעוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ נְתַתִּים לְךָ וְהִשְׁלַכְתָּם לְתוֹךְ כִּיסֶךָ, יִשָּׁבַע שֻׁלְחָנִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵין דֶּרֶךְ שֻׁלְחָנִי לִתֵּן אִסָּר עַד שֶׁיִּטֹּל דִּינָרוֹ: \n",
+ "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמְרוּ, הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה, וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים וּמִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְהַנִּפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְכֵן הַיְתוֹמִים לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פְקָדָנוּ אַבָּא, וְלֹא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא, וְשֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בֵין שְׁטָרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָרוּעַ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ נוֹלַד הַבֵּן לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָאָב, הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁאָמַר הָאָב בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה אֵינוֹ פָרוּעַ, הוּא נוֹטֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה: \n",
+ "וְאֵלּוּ נִשְׁבָּעִים שֶׁלֹּא בְטַעֲנָה, הַשֻּׁתָּפִין, וְהָאֲרִיסִין, וְהָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַנּוֹשֵׂאת וְהַנּוֹתֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וּבֶן הַבָּיִת. אָמַר לוֹ מָה אַתָּה טוֹעֲנֵנִי, רְצוֹנִי שֶׁתִּשָּׁבַע לִי, חַיָּב. חָלְקוּ הַשֻּׁתָּפִין וְהָאֲרִיסִין, אֵין יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁבִּיעוֹ. נִתְגַּלְגְּלָה לוֹ שְׁבוּעָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּל. וְהַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמֶּטֶת אֶת הַשְּׁבוּעָה: \n"
+ ],
+ [
+ "אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין הֵן, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע עַל הַכֹּל. וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל הַשְּׁבוּרָה וְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְעַל הַמֵּתָה, וּמְשַׁלְּמִים אֶת הָאֲבֵדָה וְאֶת הַגְּנֵבָה: \n",
+ "אָמַר לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ מֵת, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִשְׁבָּר, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִשְׁבָּה, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִגְנָב, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ אָבַד. אָבַד, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה אַתָּה סָח, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר. הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם. הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ נִגְנָב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. הוֹדָה מֵעַצְמוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם: \n",
+ "אָמַר לְאֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי שֶׁגָּנַבְתָּ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא גָנַבְתִּי, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁגְּנָבוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. טָבַח וּמָכַר, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. רָאָה עֵדִים שֶׁמְּמַשְׁמְשִׁין וּבָאִין, אָמַר גָּנַבְתִּי אֲבָל לֹא טָבַחְתִּי וְלֹא מָכָרְתִּי, אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן: \n",
+ "אָמַר לַשּׁוֹאֵל הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ מֵת, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִשְׁבָּר, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִשְׁבָּה, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. נִגְנָב, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ אָבַד. אָבַד, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר: \n",
+ "הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה אַתָּה סָח, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה אוֹ נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב. אָמַר לַנּוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר הֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי, אָמַר לוֹ מֵת, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה. נִשְׁבָּר, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה. נִשְׁבָּה, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר. נִגְנָב, וְהוּא שֶׁאָבַד. אָבַד, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּגְנַב. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר. מֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, חַיָּב. אָבַד, אוֹ נִגְנָב, וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ נִשְׁבָּה. מַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ אָנִי, וְאָמַר אָמֵן, פָּטוּר. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה מֵחוֹבָה לְחוֹבָה וּמִפְּטוֹר לִפְטוֹר וּמִפְּטוֹר לְחוֹבָה, פָּטוּר. מֵחוֹבָה לִפְטוֹר, חַיָּב. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל הַנִּשְׁבָּע לְהָקֵל עַל עַצְמוֹ, חַיָּב. לְהַחְמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ, פָּטוּר: \n"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "versions": [
+ [
+ "Torat Emet 357",
+ "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "heTitle": "משנה שבועות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
![\"art\"](\"images/Art_P26.jpg\")
στής). (angreift), so ist es ein Zwangs-Unfall.55 Obwohl der Hirte ebenfalls bewaffnet ist. Der Räuber setzt sein Leben ein, der Hirte braucht dies nicht zu tun. (Wenn) ein Löwe, ein Bär, ein Leopard, ein Panther56 S. Baba kama I, 4 Note 40. oder eine Schlange (schädigen), so ist es ein Zwangs-Unfall. Wann (gilt dies)? Wenn sie von selbst gekommen sind; hat man aber das Vieh an einen Ort geführt, wo Schaaren von Gewild oder Räuber sind, so ist es kein Zwangs-Unfall.",
+ "Ist das Vieh auf gewöhnliche Weise gestorben, so ist dies ein Zwangs-Unfall; hat er es aber gequält57 Durch Hunger, Hitze oder Kälte. Jerusch. liest סכפה anst. סגפה. und es ist gestorben, so ist es kein Zwangs-Unfall. Ist es auf steile Bergspitzen58 צוק bibl. מצוק steile Anhöhe. gestiegen59 Ohne dass er es zurückzuhalten vermochte. und herabgefallen, so ist dies ein Zwangs-Unfall; hat er es aber auf steile Bergspitzen geführt,60 Ebenso wenn es von selbst hinaufgestiegen und er im Stande war, es zu hindern, und es nicht verhinderte. und es ist herabgefallen und gestorben, so ist es kein Zwangs-Unfall. Ein unentgeltlicher Hüter kann ausbedingen, vom Schwure frei zu sein; ebenso der Entleiher, vom Bezahlen frei zu sein, und der Lohnhüter und der Mieter, vom Schwure61 Bei Zwangs-Unfällen. und vom Bezahlen62 Bei Diebstahl und Verlust. frei zu sein.63 Dies widerspricht nicht der folgenden Mischila, wonach eine Bedingung, die dem Thoragesetze zuwiderläuft, ungültig ist; denn der Hüter wird erst durch die Übernahme des Viehes stillschweigend zur Hut verpflichtet. Wenn er aber bei der Übernahme ausdrücklich erklärt, in gewisser Beziehung keine Verantwortlichkeit zu übernehmen; so ist er auch nach dem Thora-Gesetze nicht als „Hüter“ zu betrachten.",
+ "Wer (etwas) ausbedingt, das dem in der Thora Vorgeschriebenen zuwiderläuft, dessen Bedingung ist ungültig.64 Selbst wenn es Geldangelegenheiten betrifft, z. B. wer eine Frau sich antraut mit der Bedingung, ihr nicht Kost und Kleidung gewähren zu müssen. Dies ist indessen nur die Ansicht des R. Meïr; nach der rezipierten Halacha hat in Geldangelegenheiten auch eine Bedingung gegen die Vorschrift der Thora ihre Geltung, da Jeder auf Geld Verzicht leisten kann. Jede Bedingung, der eine Handlung vorangeht,65 Gemeint ist nach den meisten Erklärern: Wenn man den Hauptsatz (der die Handlung enthält) dem Bedingungssatze vorangehen lässt, z. B. wenn man sagt: Dieser Gegenstand sei dein, wenn du dies oder jenes tust. ist ungültig.66 Da jede Bedingung dem in Num. 32, 29 f. enthaltenen Muster gleich sein muss (vgl. Kidduschin III, 4), wo der Bedingungssatz vorangeht. Ist es Einem möglich, irgend etwas am Ende zu erfüllen67 Im Gegensatz zum Falle des ersten Satzes der Mischna, wo man die Bedingung nicht erfüllen kann, weil es gegen das Thoragesetz verstösst. Implicite ist hier aber auch die Bestimmung enthalten, dass jede sonst unerfüllbare Bedingung keine Geltung hat, z. B. die Bedingung, man solle das Meer zu Fusse überschreiten. und man hat ihm dies Anfangs68 Im Gegensatz zum Falle des zweiten Satzes der Mischna, wo der Bedingungssatz nicht am Anfange steht. als Bedingung gestellt, dann ist die Bedingung gültig."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Wenn jemand eine Kuh entliehen und deren Eigentümer mit ihr1 Zu gleicher Zeit mit ihr, wenn auch zu einer andern Arbeit an einem andern Orte. entliehen2 Der Eigentümer hat ihm zugesagt, ihm unentgeltlich Dienste leisten zu wollen. oder deren Eigentümer mit ihr gemietet3 Er hat den Eigentümer zu irgend welchen Dienstleistungen gemietet. hat, oder wenn er zuerst den Eigentümer entliehen oder gemietet und nachher die Kuh entliehen hat und diese gestorben ist, so ist er frei, denn es heisst (Exod. 22, 14): »Wenn sein Herr bei ihm war,4 D. h. nach der Erklärung der Tradition: Wenn der Eigentümer im Momente des Darleihens in einem bezahlten oder unbezahlten Dienstverhältnisse zum Entleiher gestanden hat. bezahlt er nicht.« Hat er aber (zuerst) die Kuh entliehen und nachher den Eigenthümer entliehen oder gemietet, und die Kuh ist gestorben, so ist er schuldig,5 Trotzdem der Eigentümer während des Unfalls in seinem Dienste stand, ist er dennoch Ersatz schuldig, weil jener im Momente des Darleihens nicht bei ihm bedienstet war. denn es heisst (Exod. 22, 13): »Ist der Herr nicht bei ihm, so muss er bezahlen.«",
+ "Hat Jemand eine Kuh entliehen (derart), dass er sie auf einen halben Tag entliehen und auf einen halben Tag gemietet, oder auf heute entliehen und auf morgen gemietet hat, oder hat er Eine (Kuh) gemietet und Eine entliehen, und sie ist gestorben; nun sagt der Verleiher: »die entliehene ist gestorben,« 6 Du musst demnach bezahlen. — »am Tage, da sie entliehen war, ist sie gestorben,«6 Du musst demnach bezahlen. — »in der Stunde, da sie entliehen war, ist sie gestorben;«6 Du musst demnach bezahlen. der Andere aber sagt: »ich weiss nicht,«7 Welche Kuh, resp. zu welcher Zeit die Kuh gestorben ist. so ist er schuldig.8 Nach einer Ansicht gilt überall der Rechtssatz: ברי ושמא ברי עדיף (unter „gewiss“ und „vielleicht“ ist das „gewiss“ besser), d. h. wenn von zwei Prozessierenden der Eine eine „gewisse“ Forderung stellt, der Andere aber nur: „vielleicht (שמא) ist es nicht so“ entgegnet; so ist der im Rechte, der etwas mit Gewissheit behauptet. Die rezipierte Halacha lehrt jedoch: מנה לי בידך והלה אומר איני יודע פטור (Wenn A zu B sagt: „du bist mir eine Mine schuldig“, und B entgegnet: „ich weiss es nicht“; so ist B frei) vgl. B. kama X, 7, Note 35. Nach dieser Halacha gilt die Entscheidung unserer Mischna nur in dem Falle, wo der Entleiher dem Verleiher durch ein Teilgeständnis zum Schwur verpflichtet wird. Es hat nämlich A dem B zwei Kühe auf einen Tag geliehen und auf einen Tag vermietet und es sind beide umgekommen; A fordert nun für beide Bezahlung, indem er mit Gewissheit behauptet, es seien beide am Tage des Darleihens umgekommen; B gesteht seinerseits ein, dass eine Kuh am Leih-Tage umgekommen sei und dass er diese bezahlen müsse, dagegen behauptet er, betreffs der andern Kuh nicht zu wissen, ob der Unfall am Leih-Tage oder am Mietstage stattgefunden. Da nun nach dem Gesetze ein Teilgeständnis die Pflicht auflegt, wegen des in Abrede gestellten Teils zu schwören (vgl. Schebuot VI, 1), so müsste B. betreffs der zweiten Kuh einen Eid leisten, dass sie am Mietstage umgekommen; da er aber wegen der Ungewissheit seiner Behauptung nicht schwören kann, so muss er bezahlen. Sagt der Mieter:9 Er wird hier als „Mieter“ bezeichnet, weil er mit Gewissheit behauptet: שכורה מתה. »die gemietete ist gestorben« und der Andere sagt: »die gemietete (war es)«; so schwöre der Mieter, dass die gemietete gestorben ist.10 Hier stimmen alle überein, dass ברי עדיף („gewiss“ ist besser), da mit der ברי der „Besitz des Geldes“ (חזקת ממון) verbunden ist und man wegen einer zweifelhaften Forderung den Besitzstand nicht ändern kann. Dagegen ist oben in Note 8 der „Besitzer“ (מוחזק) derjenige, der „שמא“ behauptet, und deshalb nicht ברי עדיף. Sagt der Eine: »die entliehene (war es),«; so schwöre der Miether, dass die gemiethete gestorben ist.11 Der Talmud wendet dagegen ein, dass dies mit Schebuot VI, 3 im Widerspruch stehe, wonach derjenige, der etwas zugesteht, was ihm gar nicht abgefordert wird (טענו חטין והורה לו בשעורין), von Zahlung und Schwur frei ist, vgl. B. kama III, Note 50. Darauf wird geantwortet: Indem der Vermieter berechtigt ist, dem Mieter den von der Thora vorgeschriebenen Schwur aufzulegen, dass die Kuh auf gewöhnliche Weise umgekommen (s. oben VII, Note 46); so kann er verlangen, dass der Mieter auch seine Aussage, die gemietete und nicht die entliehene Kuh sei umgekommen, in seinem Eide mitbeschwöre. Dies geschieht nach dem Grundsatze, dass die Verpflichtung zum Eide von einer Forderung auch auf eine andere Forderung „hingewälzt“ wird (גלגול שבועה), vgl. Kidduschin I, 5, Schebuot VI, 3. Sagt der Eine: »ich weiss nicht«, und der Andere sagt (ebenfalls): »ich weiss nicht;« so teilen sie.12 Dies ist die Ansicht des Symmachos; die Weisen dagegen lehren, dass derjenige, der eine Geldforderung an seinen Nächsten stellt, den Beweis zu erbringen hat, s. B. kama V, Note 6.",
+ "Entleiht jemand eine Kuh (von seinem Nächsten), und dieser schickt sie ihm13 Dem Entleiher. durch seinen14 Des Verleihers. Sohn, durch seinen Knecht oder durch seinen Boten, oder durch den Sohn, Knecht oder Boten des Entleihers,15 Den er nicht vor Zeugen zu seinem Bevollmächtigten erklärt hat. In diesem Falle ist der Bote nicht als Stellvertreter seines Absenders zu betrachten, obgleich Letzterer eingesteht, dass er ihn gesendet (vgl. Ch. M. 121, סמ״ע 6). und sie stirbt;16 Auf dem Wege, während sie der Bote herbringt. so ist er frei. Hat aber der Entleiher zu ihm gesagt: »schicke sie mir durch meinen Sohn, durch meinen Knecht oder durch meinen Boten; oder durch deinen Sohn, durch deinen Knecht17 Es ist hier von einem hebräischen Knecht die Rede, denn des kanaanitischen Knechtes Hand ist wie die Hand seines Herrn, und die Sache ist noch im Gebiete und unter der Verantwortlichkeit des Herrn, so lange sie in der Hand seines kanaanitischen Sklaven sich befindet. oder durch deinen Boten«, oder der Verleiher hat zu jenem gesagt: »ich will sie dir schicken durch meinen Sohn, durch meinen Knecht oder durch meinen Boten, oder durch deinen Sohn, durch deinen Knecht oder durch deinen Boten«, und der Entleiher hat (darauf) zu ihm gesagt: »schicke!«, und er hat sie geschickt und sie ist gestorben; so ist er schuldig. Ebenso verhält es sich beim Zurücksenden.18 Hat der Verleiher nicht zu ihm gesagt, er solle sie durch einen Boten zurücksenden, so steht sie auf dem Wege noch unter der Verantwortlichkeit des Entleihers; hat aber der Verleiher die Rücksendung durch einen Boten verlangt, dann ist der Entleiher von jeder Verantwortung frei, sobald er sie dem Boten übergeben. Alle Fälle unserer Mischna gelten nur für die Zeit, auf die er die Sache entliehen; nach dieser Zeit ist der Entleiher nur als Lohnhüter zu betrachten und selbst dann frei, wenn die Sache in seinem Hause durch אונס zu Grunde geht.",
+ "Hat jemand eine Kuh gegen einen Esel vertauscht19 Und er hat den Esel an sich gezogen (durch משיכה sich angeeignet). Dadurch wird die Kuh, obgleich sie noch in seinem Hause ist, Eigentum des Andern, s. oben IV, 1, Note 9. und jene hat geboren, oder hat jemand seine Sklavin verkauft20 Und hat für sie den Kaufpreis empfangen; dadurch wird sie Eigentum des Käufers, obgleich sie noch im Hause des Verkäufers sich befindet, s. Kidduschin I, 3. Eine Kuh wird dagegen nicht durch Geld, sondern nur durch משיכה erworben, und es kann, wenn jemand eine Kuh verkauft und sie gebiert, kein Zweifel entstehen, ob die Geburt vor oder nach dem Verkauf stattgefunden; deshalb steht im ersten Falle המחליף und im zweiten המוכר. und sie hat geboren und dieser sagt: »bevor ich verkauft habe (hat die Geburt stattgefunden)«, und der Käufer sagt: (»es geschah) nachdem ich gekauft hatte;« so theilen sie.21 Dies ist die Ansicht des Symmachos, oben Note 12. Nach den Rabbinen muss der Käufer den Beweis erbringen, da der Verkäufer der frühere Besitzer (מרא קמא) war. Hatte jemand zwei Knechte, einen grossen und einen kleinen, oder zwei Äcker, einen grossen und einen kleinen, (und er hat Einen verkauft); der Käufer sagt: »ich habe den grossen gekauft«, und Jener sagt: »ich weiss nicht;« so hat er den grossen erworben.22 Nach dem Talmud gilt diese Bestimmung nur in dem Falle, wenn A behauptet, dem B das Kaufgeld für einen grossen Knecht, resp. für einen grossen Acker gegeben zu haben, und B darauf erwidert, er wisse nicht, ob er soviel Geld erhalten habe oder weniger (das Kaufgeld für einen kleinen). Da nun B wegen seines Teilgeständnisses schwören müsste, aber wegen seines Zweifels nicht schwören kann, so muss er bezahlen, s. oben Note 8. Falls dagegen A von B den Knecht oder den Acker selbst forderte, wäre B nicht verpflichtet zu schwören, nach Note 11, und ausserdem, weil man wegen Grundstücke und Knechte nicht zu schwören braucht, s. Schebuot VI, 5. Sagt der Verkäufer: »ich habe den kleinen verkauft und der Andere sagt: »ich weiss nicht;« so gehört ihm nur der kleine.23 In diesem Falle ist „gewiss“ besser als „vielleicht“, nach Note 10. Sagt der Eine:24 Der Käufer. (»es war) der grosse«, und der Andere25 Der Verkäufer. sagt: (»es war) der kleine;« so schwöre der Verkäufer,26 Falls von ihm das Kaufgeld für einen grossen Knecht gefordert wird, nach Note 22. dass er den kleinen verkauft hat. Sagt der Eine: »ich weiss nicht«, und der Andere sagt (ebenfalls) »ich weiss nicht;« so teilen sie.27 Ansicht des Symmachos, Note 12.",
+ "Wenn jemand seine Ölbäume zu Holz verkauft,28 Ohne dass er bestimmt hat, wann sie der Käufer fällen soll. und sie tragen (Früchte),29 Indem sie der Käufer im Felde stehen liess. von denen ein Seah weniger als ein Viertel (Log Öl) gibt;30 Die Oliven sind so schlecht, dass man von einem Seah (c. 12 Liter) derselben, nach Abzug der Unkosten fürs Pflücken und Pressen, kein Viertel Log (ca. ⅛ Liter) Öl gewinnt. so gehören diese dem Eigentümer31 Dem Käufer. der Ölbäume.32 Da man auf eine solche Kleinigkeit verzichtet. Tragen sie aber (Früchte), von denen ein Seah ein Viertel gibt, (und) es sagt der Eine: „meine Ölbäume haben es hervorgebracht«, und der Andere sagt: »mein Land hat es erzeugt«; so teilen sie.33 Da beim Verkaufe nicht bestimmt wurde, wann die Bäume gefällt werden sollen. Wäre bestimmt worden, dass die Bäume sofort zu fällen seien, so gehörte der Ertrag in jedem Falle dem Feld-Eigentümer. Hätte andererseits der Käufer sich ausbedungen, die Bäume, wann er wollte, fällen zu dürfen; so gehörte in jedem Falle der Ertrag dem Käufer. Hat ein Strom seine Ölbäume weggeschwemmt und in das Feld seines Nächsten versetzt,34 Und sie haben dort Wurzel gefasst und Früchte getragen. (und) es sagt der Eine: »meine Ölbäume haben (die Früchte) hervorgebracht«, und der Andere sagt: »mein Land hat (sie) erzeugt;« so teilen sie.35 Nach dem Talmud sind an den Bäumen soviel Erdschollen von ihrem ersten Pflanzungsorte hängen geblieben, dass sie durch diese Schollen zwar keine Früchte tragen, aber weiter vegetieren könnten, so dass nach Mischna Orlah I, 3 an der zweiten Pflanzungsstelle die Orlah-Pflicht nicht beobachtet zu werden braucht. Es handelt sich ferner hier nur um die Früchte der drei ersten Jahre nach der Einwurzelung in dem fremden Felde, die, obgleich hauptsächlich durch das Feld hervorgebracht, dennoch der Feldbesitzer wegen des Verbotes von Orlah nicht hätte gebrauchen dürfen, wenn nicht die früheren Erdschollen an den Wurzeln geblieben wären. Deshalb teilen sie den Ertrag. Was aber nach drei Jahren wächst, gehört ganz dem Feldbesitzer, da er ja selbst hätte Bäume pflanzen und nach drei Jahren die Früchte geniessen können. Er hat nur den Wert der Ölbäume an deren Eigentümer zu entrichten.",
+ "Wenn jemand seinem Nächsten ein Haus in der Regenzeit vermietet;36 Ohne Zeitbestimmung. so kann er ihn vom Hüttenfeste bis zum Pesachfeste nicht hinaussetzen. In der Sommerzeit (muss man) dreissig Tage (zuvor aufkündigen).37 Ebenso muss er mindestens 30 Tage vor dem Hüttenfeste, nämlich am 15. Ellul, kündigen, wenn er den Mieter im Winter vor Pesach ausziehen heissen will. In grossen Städten38 Wo eine Wohnung schwer zu finden ist. (muss man) sowohl in der Sommerzeit als in der Regenzeit zwölf Monate (zuvor kündigen).39 Dieselbe Kündigungszeit gilt auch, wenn der Mieter aufkündigen will. Kaufläden (muss man) sowohl in kleinen als in grossen Städten zwölf Monate (zuvor kündigen). R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Einen Bäcker- oder Färber-Laden (muss man) drei Jahre (vorher kündigen).40 Weil man da den Kunden auf lange Zeit zu borgen pflegt.",
+ "Wenn jemand seinem Nächsten ein Haus vermietet, so ist der Vermieter verpflichtet, Türe, Riegel,40a נגר vgl. Erubin X, Anm. 55—56. Schloss und jede Sache, die eine Handwerksarbeit ist,41 Z. B. Fenster. (machen zu lassen); aber eine Sache, die keine Handwerksarbeit ist, muss der Mieter machen lassen. Der Mist42 Von fremden Ochsen, die in den Hof kommen. gehört dem Hausherrn;43 Der Mist von den Tieren des Mieters dagegen gehört dem Mieter. dem Mieter gehört nur, was aus dem Backofen und dem Kochherde kommt.44 Die Asche.",
+ "Wenn jemand seinem Nächsten ein Haus auf ein Jahr vermietet, und das Jahr wird zum Schaltjahr gemacht;45 Es wird ein Monat eingeschaltet, so dass das Jahr 13 Monate hat, s. Sanhedrin I, 2. so ist es zu Gunsten des Mieters ein Schaltjahr.46 Er braucht wegen des Schaltmonats nicht mehr Miete zu bezahlen. Hat er es ihm auf Monate vermietet,47 D. h. er bedang so und so viel Mietszins pro Monat. und das Jahr wird ein Schaltjahr; so ist es zu Gunsten des Vermieters ein Schaltjahr.48 Er bekommt auch den Mietzins für den Schaltmonat. Es geschah einst49 Hier ist noch folgende Bestimmung vorauszusetzen: „Wenn der Mietsvertrag zwei einander widersprechende Stipulationen enthält, so teilen sie den in Frage stehenden Betrag“. — Dazu wird als Beweis die Begebenheit von Zippori angeführt. in Zippori,50 Sepphoris. dass einer von seinem Nächsten ein Badhaus mietete (wobei bedungen wurde:) „um zwölf Gold-Denar auf ein Jahr,51 Wonach auch für ein Schaltjahr nur 12 Gold-Denar zu zahlen wären. um einen Gold-Denar monatlich“;52 Nach diesem zweiten Ausdruck wären für ein Schaltjahr 13 Gold-Denar zu zahlen. da kam die Sache vor R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, und R. Jose, und sie sagten: Sie sollen den Mietzins des Schaltmonats teilen.53 Er zahlt für den Schaltmonat ½ Denar, weil es zweifelhaft ist, ob wir uns nach dem ersten oder nach dem letzten Ausdrucke richten sollen. Nach der rezipierten Halacha wird dagegen ein derartiger Fall zu Gunsten des im Besitze des Hauses befindlichen Vermieters entschieden, und der Mieter muss den Mietzins für den Schaltmonat ganz bezahlen.",
+ "Wenn jemand seinem Nächsten ein Haus vermietet, und es stürzt ein, so ist er54 Der Vermieter. verpflichtet ihm55 Dem Mieter. ein (anderes) Haus herzustellen. War es klein, darf er es nicht gross machen, (war es) gross, darf er es nicht klein machen. War es Ein Haus,56 Eine Stube. darf er nicht zwei (Häuser) machen; (waren es) zwei, darf er nicht Eines machen. Er darf nicht die (Anzahl der) Fenster vermindern, und er darf sie auch nicht vermehren,57 Die Bestimmungen der Mischna gelten, wie der Talmud lehrt, nur dann, wenn der Vermieter dem Mieter ein Haus gezeigt und zu ihm gesagt hat: „Ich vermiete dir ein Haus wie dieses (בית כזה).“ Hätte er aber gesagt: „ich vermiete dir dieses Haus (בית זה)“, dann brauchte er, wenn es einstürzt, ihm kein anderes herzustellen (s. oben VI, 3, Note 23). Hätte er wieder gesagt: „ich vermiete dir ein Haus“ (ohne nähere Bestimmung), so dürfte er das neu hergestellte Haus nach Belieben ändern. es sei denn mit Beider Einwilligung.58 Wenn auch der Mieter in die Änderung einwilligt."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Wenn jemand von seinem Nächsten ein Feld übernimmt,1 Der Übernehmer kann sein: 1) ein אריס (Feldbauer, oben V, Note 73), der dem Grundherrn eine Quote des Ertrags (½, ⅓, oder ¼) abliefert; 2) ein הוכר (ar. حكر pachten), ein Pächter, der dem Grundherrn einen festbestimmten Pachtzins in Feldfrucht (z. B. 10 Kor Weizen jährlich) zu geben hat; 3) ein שוכר (Mieter) der einen festbestimmten Pachtzins in Geld bezahlt. Die erste Bestimmung unserer Mischna gilt in allen drei Fällen. (so gilt Folgendes): Wo es üblich ist zu schneiden, muss er schneiden; (ist es üblich) auszureissen, muss er ausreissen; (ist es üblich) hinterher2 Nach der Ernte. zu pflügen,3 Um die Wurzeln des Unkrauts zu vernichten. muss er pflügen; Alles nach dem Landesbrauche. So wie sie4 Der Grundherr und der אריס. das Getreide teilen, so teilen sie auch Stroh und Stoppeln; so wie sie den Wein teilen, so teilen sie auch die Reben und die Stäbe,5 An die man die Reben bindet. und6 Dieser Satz dient zur Begründung des vorhergehenden. beide müssen die Stäbe liefern.7 ספק s. oben VII, 1, Note 7. Vielleicht aber hier wie oben das hebr ספק (ar. سغق und صغق) zusammenschlagen, verbinden.",
+ "Wenn jemand von seinem Nächsten ein Feld übernimmt8 Als אריס oder חוכר., und es ist ein Bewässerungs-Feld9 בית השלחין ein Feld, das man künstlich bewässern muss. Das Wort שלחין erklärt der Talmud in Moëd k. 2a vom aram. שלהי, müde sein (vgl. ארעא משלהיא, lechzendes Land, in Targ. Jes. 25, 5); in Baba batra 68a dagegen wird es von שלח מים Wasser ausgiessen (Job. 5, 10) abgeleitet. Ferner wird dort בית השלחין nach שלחיך in HL. 4, 13 als „Gartenland“ gefasst. Neuere erklären es vom arab. سلح Regenwasser, das in Teichen gesammelt ist, womit die Felder getränkt werden, vgl. Neh. 3, 15: ברכת השלח. oder ein Baumfeld;10 So dass es durch die Bewässerung-Anlagen und die Bäume für den Pächter einen höhern Wert hat. so darf er, wenn die Quelle11 Die zur Bewässerung des Feldes dient. ausgetrocknet oder die Bäume umgehauen worden, ihm von der Pacht nichts abziehen.12 Weil er nicht ausdrücklich erklärt hat, dass er es nur mit der Quelle oder mit den Bäumen pachtet. Wenn er aber zu ihm gesagt hatte: „verpachte mir dieses Bewässerungs-Feld oder dieses Baumfeld“; so kann er, wenn die Quelle ausgetrocknet oder die Bäume umgehauen worden, ihm (etwas) von der Pacht abziehen.",
+ "Wenn jemand von seinem Nächsten ein Feld übernimmt13 Als אריס. und es brach liegen lässt,14 St. בור; das Hif’il הוביר wie אובין Ab. sara III, 5. Jerusch. liest: אם משזכה בה הבירה wenn er, nachdem er es in Besitz genommen, es brach liegen lässt. so schätzt man es, wie viel es zu tragen vermag, und er gibt jenem (seinen Teil); denn so pflegte man dem Grundherrn zu verschreiben:15 Weil man gewöhnlich so verschreibt, daher gilt dies selbst, wenn man es nicht ausdrücklich verschrieben hat (Tosaphot). „Wenn ich brach lasse und nicht bearbeite,16 „Wenn ich entweder ganz brach lasse, oder wenn ich nicht so bearbeite, wie es sich gehört.“ so zahle ich vom Besten.“17 So viel als das Feld tragen würde, wenn es bestens bearbeitet wäre.",
+ "Wenn jemand von seinem Nächsten ein Feld übernimmt18 Als חוכר. und es nicht ausjäten19 Oben V, Note 84. will, indem er zu ihm spricht: „was kümmerts dich,20 Oben III, Note 34. da ich dir die Pacht dafür gebe?“21 „Es ist ja nur mein Schade, wenn weniger wächst!“ — so hört man nicht auf ihn, weil Jener zu ihm sagen kann: morgen ziehest du aus dem Felde hinaus, und es bringt mir Unkraut hervor.22 Im nächsten Jahre, indem jetzt der Same der Kräuter zur Erde fällt; es würde daher auch nichts nützen, wenn er nach der Ernte das Feld umpflügen wollte.",
+ "Wenn jemand von seinem Nächsten ein Feld übernimmt23 Als אריס. und es ist nicht ergiebig,24 So dass der אריס nicht weiter darin arbeiten will. so muss er, wenn man aus dem Ertrage einen Haufen25 D. i. zwei Seah Getreide nach Abzug aller Ausgaben. errichten kann, sich damit abgeben. Es sagt R. Jehuda: Was für eine Massbestimmung gibt ein Haufen?26 Es kommt ja auch auf die Grösse des Feldes an! Vielmehr (muss er sich damit abgeben), wenn der Ertrag so viel wie die Aussaat ist.27 Dass man vom Ertrage das nächste Jahr das Feld besäen könnte. Jerusch. liest: כדי ניפלה in Peah V, 1 כדי נפלה. Nach dem Talmud ist dies 4 Seah für einen Kor, d. i. ¹⁄₄₅ des gewöhnlichen Ertrags.",
+ "Wenn jemand von seinem Nächsten ein Feld übernimmt,28 Als חוכר. und Heuschrecken haben es verheert, oder es ist (vom Sturm) ausgedroschen worden;29 Targ. zu שדופות (Gen. 41, 6): שקיפן, ausgeschlagen. so kann er, wenn es eine Landplage ist,30 Die meisten Felder dieser Gegend sind geschlagen. dem Grundherrn (etwas)31 Nach Verhältnis des Schadens. von der Pacht abziehen; wenn es aber keine Landplage ist, kann er ihm von der Pacht nichts abziehen.32 Denn es ist des Pächters Unglück. R. Jehuda sagt: Wenn er es von ihm um Geld übernommen hat, kann er in jedem Falle ihm von der Pacht nichts abziehen.33 Denn über das Geld ist das Missgeschick nicht verhängt worden.",
+ "Wenn jemand von seinem Nächsten ein Feld für zehn Kor Weizen jährlich übernimmt, und es ist geschlagen,34 Das Getreide ist schlecht. so kann er ihm35 Dem Grundherrn. von demselben (Felde die Pacht) geben;36 Er braucht nicht schönes Getreide zu geben. war dessen Weizen schön, so kann er nicht zu ihm sagen: „siehe, ich kaufe dir vom Markte“, — sondern er muss ihm von demselben (Felde) geben",
+ "Wer von seinem Nächsten ein Feld übernimmt,37 Als חוכר oder שוכר. um es mit Gerste zu besäen, der darf es nicht mit Weizen besäen;38 Da Weizen dem Boden mehr Kraft entzieht als Gerste. (hat er es übernommen), um Weizen (zu säen), so darf er es mit Gerste besäen. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, verbietet es.39 Denn es ist für das Feld schädlich, wenn man es jedes Jahr mit einer andern Getreideart besäet; vielleicht hatte nun der Eigentümer im vorigen Jahre Weizen gesäet und will jetzt keine Gerste säen lassen. Übernimmt er es zu Getreide, so darf er es nicht mit Hülsenfrüchten besäen;40 Weil Hülsenfrüchte dem Boden mehr Kraft entziehen als Getreide. übernimmt er es zu Hülsenfrüchten, so darf er es mit Getreide besäen. (Nach anderer LA. umgekehrt)41 So liest auch Jerusch. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, verbietet es.",
+ "Wenn jemand von seinem Nächsten ein Feld auf wenige Jahre42 Auf weniger als 7 Jahre, und zwar als חוכר. übernimmt, so darf er es nicht mit Flachs besäen,43 Weil Flachs den Boden besonders schwächt und dessen Wurzeln 7 Jahre in der Erde bleiben. und es gehört ihm nichts von den Balken der Sykomore;44 שקמה der Maulbeerfeigenbaum (ficus sycomorus), dessen Äste abgehauen und zu Gebäude-Balken verwendet werden. Diese Äste wachsen wieder, aber erst nach 7 Jahren können sie als Balken gebraucht werden; wer nun auf weniger als 7 Jahre ein Feld gepachtet, hat stillschweigend die Balken der Sykomore nicht beansprucht. hat er es von ihm auf sieben Jahre übernommen, so darf er im ersten Jahre es mit Flachs besäen und Balken von Sykomoren abhauen.45 Da sie bis zu seinem Austritt wieder wachsen werden.",
+ "Wenn jemand von seinem Nächsten ein Feld auf eine Jahrwoche46 שבוע heisst in der Mischna eine Jahrwoche, septennium, wie in Dan. 9, 24 ff. um siebenhundert Sus übernimmt, so ist das Schabbath-Jahr mit darin begriffen;47 Und er kann ihm wegen des Schabbatjahres nichts abziehen. hat er es von ihm auf sieben Jahre um siebenhundert Sus übernommen, so ist das Schabbat-Jahr nicht darin begriffen.",
+ "Ein für den Tag Gemieteter kann die ganze Nacht48 Die auf den Tag folgt. (den Lohn) erheben;49 גבה (syr. ܓܒܳܐ) einkassieren, wegnehmen. ein für die Nacht Gemieteter kann den ganzen Tag50 Nach der Nacht. den Lohn erheben;51 Diese beiden Bestimmungen ergeben sich aus den beiden Versen: „du sollst den Lohn des Mietlings nicht bis zum Morgen bei dir übernachten lassen“ (Lev. 19, 13) — und „an seinem Tage sollst du ihm seinen Lohn geben, lasse darüber nicht die Sonne untergehen“ (Deut 24, 15). Da nun nach dem Gesetze der Mietslohn erst nach Vollendung der Mietszeit bezahlt werden muss, so erklärt der Talmud: Der erste Vers handelt vom Tages-Mietling (שכיר יום), dessen Zahlungszeit die ganze folgende Nacht ist und bei dem man, im Falle der Nichtzahlung bis zum Morgen, das Verbot לא תלין übertreten hat; der zweite Vers handelt wieder vom Nacht-Mietling (שכיר לילה), dessen Zahlungszeit der ganze folgende Tag ist und bei dem man, falls man bis zum Sonnenuntergang nicht zahlt, das Verbot לא תבא עליו השמש übertritt. ein auf Stunden Gemieteter kann entweder den ganzen Tag oder die ganze Nacht (den Lohn) erheben.52 Wenn seine Mietszeit am Tage zu Ende ist, so ist der Rest des Tages die Zeit seiner Lohnzahlung; endigt seine Arbeitszeit in der Nacht, so ist der Rest der Nacht als Zahlungszeit zu betrachten. Ein auf eine Woche, einen Monat, ein Jahr oder eine Jahrwoche Gemieteter kann, wenn er bei Tag herausgeht, den ganzen Tag53 Den Rest des Tages. (den Lohn) erheben; geht er bei Nacht heraus, so kann er die ganze Nacht und den ganzen Tag54 Nach Note 52 sollte hier auch nur der Rest der Nacht als Zahlungszeit bestimmt werden. In der Tat ist dies auch die Ansicht des R. Jehuda in einer Baraita. Die hier gegebene Bestimmung der Mischna ist die Ansicht des R. Simon. (den Lohn) erheben.",
+ "Sowohl hinsichtlich des Lohnes für Menschen, als für Vieh oder für Geräte gelten die Vorschriften: „an seinem Tage sollst du seinen Lohn geben“55 Deut. 24, 15. — und „du sollst den Lohn des Mietlings nicht bis zum Morgen bei dir übernachten lassen.“56 Lev 19, 13. Wann (gilt dies)? Wenn er von ihm (den Lohn) gefordert hat; hat er von ihm nichts gefordert, so übertritt er nicht (die Vorschriften).57 Denn es heisst: אתך (bei dir), d. h. durch deinen Willen, nicht aber, wenn es durch des Tagelöhners Willen geschieht. Hat er ihn58 Mit dessen Einwilligung. an einen Krämer oder an einen Wechsler angewiesen,59 מחה nach Num. 34, 11 stossen (intransit.), daher המתה stossen (transit.); המחהו אצל פ׳: er hat ihn zu jem. hingestossen, an jem. angewiesen. Eine andere Erklärung s. Erubin V, Note 31 so übertritt er nicht (die Vorschriften).60 Denn nur wenn der Lohn „bei dir“ (אתך) ist, bist du zu zahlen verpflichtet, nicht aber wenn du ihn an einen Andern angewiesen. Ein Tagelöhner, (der) in seiner Zeit61 In der oben, Mischna 11, bestimmten Zahlungszeit. (den Lohn fordert),62 Und der Arbeitgeber behauptet, denselben bereits ganz oder zum Teil bezahlt zu haben. schwört und bekommt gezahlt;63 Von Rechtswegen hätte der Arbeitgeber seine Aussage beschwören müssen, um sich von der Zahlung zu befreien (Schebuot VII, 1), allein da dieser wegen seiner vielen Geschäfte oft irrtümlich bezahlt zu haben glaubt, lässt man lieber den Tagelöhner schwören. ist seine Zeit vorbei, so kann er nicht schwören und gezahlt nehmen.64 Sondern der Arbeitgeber schwört und ist frei; denn am Ende des Zahlungstermins überlegt es dieser genau und erinnert sich, ob er bezahlt hat oder nicht, da er nicht das Verbot לא תלין übertreten will. Sind aber Zeugen vorhanden, dass er ihn zur Zeit65 Am Ende seiner Zahlungszeit. gefordert hat,66 Und dass der Arbeitsgeber zu ihm gesagt hat, er werde ihm später zahlen. so schwört er und bekommt gezahlt.67 Nach der Halacha gilt dies nur eine עונה (d. i. ein Tag oder eine Nacht) nach der Forderung. Hinsichtlich eines Beisass-Proselyten,68 Vgl. oben V, Note 54. gilt die Vorschrift: „an seinem Tage sollst du ihm seinen Lohn geben“;69 Denn es heisst dort (Deut. 24, 14): „von deinem Fremdling, der in deinem Lande in deinen Toren ist“ — d i. der Torproselyte. — aber es gilt seinetwegen nicht die Vorschrift: „du sollst den Lohn des Mietlings nicht bis zum Morgen bei dir übernachten lassen“.70 Denn dabei steht nichts vom Thorproselyten, sondern es heisst dort vorher (Lev. 19, 13) רעך. Im Talmud wird jedoch eine Ansicht angeführt, dass auch dieses Verbot zu Gunsten eines Beisass-Proselyten gültig ist; so lehrt auch der Traktat Gerim III, 2.",
+ "Wenn jemand seinem Nächsten geliehen hat,71 Und dieser bezahlt nicht zum Zahlungstermin. so darf er ihn72 Selbst ausserhalb seines Hauses. nur durch das Gericht73 Das seinen Boten sendet, um den Schuldner zu pfänden. pfänden lassen. Man74 Selbst der Gerichtsbote. darf nicht in sein Haus gehen, um das Pfand zu nehmen, denn es heisst (Deut. 24, 11): „Draussen sollst du bleiben!“ Hatte er zwei Geräte,75 Die Schuld beträgt so viel, als beide wert sind; aber der Schuldner bedarf eines zu seinem Gebrauche. so nimmt man eines, und das andere muss man lassen (and. LA.: wiedergeben);76 So liest auch Raschi und fasst den folgenden Satz מחזיר הכר als Erklärung dieses Satzes. Die zwei Geräte sind dann solche, wovon eins am Tage und das andere Nachts gebraucht wird. man muss die Decke77 כר Unterdecke, worauf man liegt (Tos. Ab. sara 65a); gewöhnlich übersetzt man: Kissen. zur Nacht und den Pflug78 Nach Einigen darf der Pflug nur in der Nacht gepfändet werden, aber nicht am Tage, da er ebenso wie die Handmühle (weiter unten) zur Bereitung der Lebensmittel gehört. Nach Andern ist מחרישה hier „eine Bürste“, die man am Tage zum Abreiben des Körpers im Bade gebraucht. zum Tage wiedergeben. Wenn er stirbt, braucht man es seinen Erben nicht wiederzugeben.79 Denn es heisst (Deut. 24, 13): „Du sollst ihm das Pfand zurückgeben; das Wort לו (ihm) schliesst die Erben aus. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Auch ihm selbst braucht man es nur bis dreissig Tage80 D. i. die vom Gerichte gewöhnlich gewährte Frist (Raschi nach Talmud 118a). Nach ראב״ד, weil ein Darlehen ohne bestimmten Zahlungstermin (סתם הלואה) auf 30 Tage gegeben wird. wiederzugeben; nach dreissig Tagen kann man es gerichtlich verkaufen·81 Nach dem ersten Tanna (תנא קמא) darf es nicht verkauft werden, falls es der Schuldner braucht; sondern es muss immer zur Zeit des Gebrauchs zurückgegeben werden. Das Pfand gewährt dem Gläubiger dennoch die Vorteile, dass die Schuld im Erlassjahr nicht verfällt (Schebiit X, 2) und dass der Schuldner die Schuld nicht ableugnen kann, wenn das Pfand ihm stets nur vor Zeugen zurückgegeben wird. Eine Witwe82 Nach סמ״ע auch eine geschiedene Frau (גרושה); nach ט״ז jede Frau, auch eine Jungfrau. darf man, sowohl wenn sie arm, als wenn sie reich ist, nicht pfänden,83 Gegen R. Simon, der es nur bei einer armen verbietet, weil der Gläubiger dieser das Pfand immer zurückbringen müsste und sie durch diesen steten Verkehr in übeln Ruf bringen könnte. denn es heisst (Deut. 24, 17): „Du sollst das Kleid einer Witwe nicht pfänden!“84 Nach der Mischna ist es nicht gestattet, ein allgemein lautendes Gesetz durch Unterlegung eines Motivs in beschränktem Umfange aufzufassen (לא דרשינן טעמא דקרא). Wer eine Handmühle pfändet, übertritt ein Verbot und ist wegen zweier Geräte schuldig,85 Er erhält zweimal die Geisselstrafe (מלקות), obwohl die beiden Geräte zu Einem Gebrauche dienen. denn es heisst (Deut. 24, 6): „Man soll nicht den untern86 רחיים nach der Trad. „der untere Mühlstein“, der mit dem Gestelle der Handmühle verbunden ist. und obern Mühlstein pfänden!“ Nicht nur vom untern und obern Mühlstein hat man (dies) gesagt, sondern von allen Dingen, mit welchen man Lebensmittel bereitet,87 Z. B. Backtröge, Kochtöpfe. denn es heisst (das.): „weil man das Leben pfändet.“88 Die ganze Mischna handelt nur von dem Falle, dass der Gläubiger dem Schuldner ein Pfand abnimmt, um sich dadurch wegen seines Darlehens zu versichern; will aber der Gläubiger, nachdem der Zahlungstermin gekommen ist, seine Schuld eintreiben, dann braucht er die obigen Vorschriften nicht zu beobachten; er hat nur dem Schuldner an Nahrungsmitteln, Kleidung, Handwerkszeug und Mobiliar soviel zu lassen, als er zu seiner Existenz notwendig bedarf, מסדרין לבעל חוב (Talmud 113b)."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Wenn ein Haus und ein Söller, die Zweien gehören1 Das Haus (das Erdgeschoss) gehört einem und der Söller (das obere Stockwerk) dem Andern., eingestürzt sind, so teilen sie2 Nach Verhältnis der ihnen gehörigen Teile. das Holz, die Steine und den Schutt, und man erwägt, welche3 אלו welche s. II, 1. Steine geeignet waren,4 Jerusch. liest ראויות st. הראויות. zerbrochen zu werden.5 Wenn ein Teil der Steine zertrümmert ist und jeder von beiden die ganzen Steine beansprucht, muss man erwägen, welche Steine wahrscheinlich zertrümmert wurden. Ist nämlich das Gebäude vom Grunde aus geborsten und auf seine Stelle niedergesunken, so sind wahrscheinlich die untern Steine zertrümmert worden; ist dagegen der obere Teil erschüttert worden und weit fort gestürzt, so sind wahrscheinlich die obern Steine gebrochen. Die erste Bestimmung dagegen, dass sie die Steine teilen, handelt nach dem Talmud von einem Falle, wo die Steine weggeräumt wurden und man nicht mehr entscheiden kann, in welcher Weise der Einsturz erfolgt ist. Wenn Einer von ihnen einen Teil seiner Steine6 Die ganz geblieben und grösser oder besser sind als die andern. erkennt, so nimmt er sie,7 Wenn der andere wenigstens einen Teil seiner Forderung zugesteht, obwohl er Betreffs des Übrigen nichts zu wissen behauptet, s. oben VIII, Note 8. und sie werden ihm angerechnet.8 Indem der andere dafür andere ganze Steine nach Verhältnis bekommt.",
+ "Ist ein Haus und ein Söller von Zweien (bewohnt),9 Die Mischna handelt von dem Falle, dass ein Hausbesitzer seinen Söller einem Andern vermietet hat mit den Worten: „ich vermiete dir diesen Söller über diesem Hause“, so dass er, wenn dieser einstürzt (nach VIII, 9, Note 57) nicht verpflichtet ist, ihm eine andere Wohnung zu geben. und der Söller bricht ein10 Vom Fussboden des Söllers ist ein Stück von 4 Handbreiten im Quadrat durchgebrochen. und der Hausherr will ihn nicht herstellen; so kann der Bewohner des Söllers hinabgehen und unten wohnen,11 Denn der Hausherr hat bei der Vermietung das Erdgeschoss für den Söller zur Verfügung gestellt, da er „den Söller dieses Hauses“ vermietet hat. bis jener ihm den Söller herstellt. R. Jose sagt: Der Untere gibt das Gebälk12 Die Balken und die Bretter darüber. und der Obere den Estrich.13 מעזיבה, von עזב, vgl. Neh. 3, 8, (ar. زعب stossen, füllen, gefüllt sein). Es ist der Estrich (pavimentum), der über das Gebälk gelegt wird und nach R. Jose den Zweck hat, die Gruben und Unebenheiten im Gebälke auszufüllen, weshalb dies der Obere herstellen muss. Nach dem ersten Tanna dagegen dient der Estrich dazu, das Gebälk zu festigen, dass es nicht schwanke, weshalb der Untere auch dies herzustellen hat.",
+ "Wenn ein Haus und ein Söller, die Zweien gehören,14 Wie oben Note 1. eingestürzt sind, und der Herr des Söllers den Herrn des Hauses zu bauen15 Die untern Wände und das Gebälk darüber. auffordert, dieser aber nicht bauen will; so kann der Herr des Söllers das Haus16 Das Erdgeschoss. bauen und darin wohnen, bis er ihm seine Auslagen erstattet.17 Dann zieht er aus und baut seinen Söller. R. Jehuda sagt: Es würde dieser dann18 Wenn er ihm die Auslagen zurückerstattet. in seines Nächsten (Hause) gewohnt haben und ihm Miete zahlen müssen.19 Da er vom Hause des Nächsten einen Nutzen gehabt, so muss er, obgleich jener sein Haus nicht bauen wollte und somit keinen Schaden hatte, die Miete bezahlen. Vielmehr soll der Herr des Söllers das Haus und den Söller bauen, den Söller bedachen20 So dass der Söller bewohnbar ist. Er hat dann keinen Nutzen, wenn er auch im Erdgeschosse wohnt, da ihm ja sein Söller zur Wohnung bereit steht. und im Hause21 Im Erdgeschoss. Die Tos. lesen: בתוכה st. בבית; er wohnt in seinem Söller, lässt aber den andern nicht ins Erdgeschoss ziehen, bis er ihm die Auslagen erstattet. Im Erdgeschoss darf er aber nicht wohnen, da er doch den Nutzen hätte, nicht die Treppen hinaufsteigen zu müssen. wohnen, bis jener ihm seine Auslagen erstattet.",
+ "Ebenso wenn eine Ölpresse22 בית הבד, das Haus der Ölpresse (syr. ܒܕܳܐ in einen Felsen gebaut und darüber ein Garten ist,23 Die Presse gehört Einem, und der Garten einem Anderen. welcher einbricht,24 4 Handbreiten im Quadrat, wie oben Note 10. so darf der Gartenbesitzer heruntergehen und unten säen, bis der andere über seiner Ölpresse Wölbungen25 כיפה (von כוף, biegen) Gebogenes, Wölbung. macht.26 Worauf der Gartenbesitzer Erde legen und säen kann. Wenn eine Wand oder ein Baum in ein öffentliches Gebiet hineinstürzt und schädigt, so ist man vom Ersatze frei.27 Da der Schaden durch höhere Gewalt (אונס) entstanden und er ihn nicht verhüten konnte. Hat man28 Das Gericht. ihm eine Frist29 Die Frist des Gerichts ist 30 Tage. anberaumt, den Baum umzuhauen oder die Wand niederzureissen, und sie sind während dieser Frist umgefallen, so ist er frei; (geschah es aber) nach der Frist, so ist er schuldig.",
+ "Wenn die Wand des Einen dicht am Garten seines Nächsten stand und umfiel30 In den Garten hinein. und dieser zu ihm sagt: „räume deine Steine weg!“ und er31 Der Eigentümer der Wand. sagt zu jenem: „sie seien dir überlassen;“32 הגיעוך eig. sie mögen dich treffen, dir zufallen. so hört man nicht auf ihn.33 Er muss sie wegräumen, wenn der Gartenbesitzer sie nicht nehmen will. Wenn, nachdem jener es angenommen hat,34 Und sie in des andern Gegenwart weggeräumt hat. er zu ihm sagt: „hier hast du35 הילך = הי לך, siehe, für dich, hier hast du. deine Auslagen, und ich will das Meinige nehmen“; so hört man nicht auf ihn. Wenn jemand einen Arbeiter gemietet hatte, bei ihm in Stroh und Stoppeln zu arbeiten,36 In seinem Felde aufzulesen. und dieser zu ihm sagt: „gib mir meinen Lohn!“ und er sagt zu ihm: „nimm für deinen Lohn das, was du gearbeitet hast!“; so hört man nicht auf ihn.37 Denn er muss ihm den bedungenen Lohn in Geld bezahlen. Wenn, nachdem Jener es angenommen hat,38 Und es sich angeeignet hat. er zu ihm sagt: „da hast du deinen Lohn, und ich will das Meinige nehmen“; so hört man nicht auf ihn. Wenn jemand Dünger in das öffentliche Gebiet hinaustragen lässt; so soll, während der Eine hinausträgt, ein anderer düngen.39 Damit der Dünger nicht auf der Strasse liegen bleibe. Man darf im öffentlichen Gebiete nicht Lehm einweichen40 Weil man ihn gewöhnlich viele Tage weichen lässt. und nicht Ziegel streichen;41 Weil man diese lange liegen lässt, bis sie trocken werden. man darf jedoch Lehm kneten,42 Um ihn sofort zum Baue zu verwenden., aber keine Ziegel.43 Man darf nicht auf der Strasse Lehm zu Ziegeln kneten, wenn auch die Bereitung der Ziegel im Hofe stattfindet. Wenn man im öffentlichen Gebiete baut, so soll, während der eine Steine herbeibringt, ein anderer bauen,44 Damit man sie gleich, nachdem sie gebracht werden, zum Baue verwende. und wenn man schädigt, muss man den Schaden ersetzen. R. Simon, Sohn Gamliels, sagt: Man darf auch45 Im öffentlichen Gebiete. seine Arbeit dreissig Tage vorher vorbereiten.46 Ohne wegen eines dadurch entstehenden Schadens ersatzpflichtig zu sein.",
+ "(Wenn von) zwei (nebeneinander liegenden) Gärten47 Die Zweien gehören. einer höher als der andere (ist)48 Der eine liegt auf einem Berge, und der andere im angrenzenden Tale. und Kraut zwischen ihnen49 Auf dem steilen Abhang des Berges. (wächst); so sagt R. Meïr. Es gehört dem Obern.50 Weil es von seiner Erde die Nahrung zieht. R. Jehuda sagt: Es gehört dem Untern.51 Weil es in seinem Luftraum wächst. Da sagte R. Meïr: Wenn der Obere seine Erde wegnehmen wollte, so wäre doch hier kein Kraut! Da sagte R. Jehuda: Wenn der Untere seinen Garten (mit Erde)52 Jerusch. liest עפר nach גינתו. ausfüllen wollte, so wäre doch hier kein Kraut! Da sagte R. Meïr: Da beide einander wehren53 Das Wachsen dieses Krauts verhindern. מחה, stossen, verwehren, s. oben IX, 12, Note 59. können, so sieht man, woher dieses Kraut lebt.54 Seine Nahrung zieht. Es sagt R. Simon: Alles, was der Obere mit seiner ausgestreckten Hand nehmen kann, gehört ihm,55 Weil es von seiner Erde die Nahrung saugt, wie B. Meïr sagt. und das Übrige gehört dem Untern.56 Denn dies hat der Obere zu Gunsten des Untern preisgegeben, da er sich schämt, um Erlaubnis zu bitten, in seines Nächsten Garten gehen zu dürfen, um dieses Kraut zu pflücken."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e729119198febec7438852b1cd8bedc75b07e8aa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Metzia",
+ "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/",
+ "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 1.0,
+ "license": "CC-BY",
+ "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא מציעא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "If two people are grasping a cloak: One says, “I found it” and the other says, “I found it”, or one says “It’s all mine”, and the other says, “It’s all mine”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the cloak and they split the cloak. one says, “It’s all mine” and the other says, “It’s half mine”, the one who says, “It’s all mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¾ and the one who says “It’s half mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¼, and the former takes ¾ and the latter takes ¼.",
+ "If two men were riding on an animal, or one was riding and the other was leading the animal, and one of them said, “The animal is all mine”, and the other said “It is all mine.”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the animal and they split it. If after the case is settled, they both admit to the others claim, or if there are witnesses they can split the animal without an oath.",
+ "If a man was riding on a beast and saw lost property and said to his fellow, “Give it to me”, and the other took it and said, “I have acquired it”, he (the other) has acquired it. But if after he gave it to him he said, “I acquired it first”, he has said nothing.",
+ "If a man saw lost property and fell upon it and someone else came along and seized it, he that seized it acquired it. If a man saw people running [in his field] after lost property [such as] a deer with a broken leg, or pigeons that couldn’t fly, and he said, “My field acquires [them] for me”, he has acquired them. But if the deer was running normally or the pigeons flying, and he said, “My field acquires [them] for me”, he has said nothing.",
+ "That which is found by a man’s minor son or daughter, and that which is found by his Canaanite slave or female slave, and that which is found by his wife belongs to him. That which is found by his son or daughter that are of age, and that which is found by his Hebrew slave or female slave, and that which is found by his wife whom he has divorced, even though he has not yet paid her ketubah, belongs to them.",
+ "If a man found debt documents he should not return them [to the creditor] if they recorded a lien on the [debtor’s] property, since the court would exact repayment from the property. But if they did not record a lien on the [debtor’s] property he may return them, since the court would not exact payment from the property, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “In either case he should not return them, since [in either case] the court would exact payment from the property.”",
+ "If a man found bills of divorce, or writs of emancipation or wills, or deeds of gifts, or receipts, he should not return them, for I might say, “they were written out, and the writer might have changed his mind and decided not to give them.”",
+ "If a man found letters of evaluation, or letters of sustenance, or documents of halitzah or refusal, or documents of arbitration or any document drawn out by the court he should return them. If he found documents in a satchel or bag, or a bundle of documents he should return them. How many count as a bundle of documents? Three tied up together. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [If one found three documents in which] one borrowed from three others, they should be returned to the borrower. But if [one found three documents in which] one loaned to three, they should be returned to the lender. If a man found a document among his documents and he does not know what is its nature, it must be left until Elijah comes. If there were postscripts amongst them, he should do what is stated in the postscript."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Which found objects belong to the finder and which ones must be proclaimed [in the lost and found]? These found objects belong to the finder: if a man found scattered fruit, scattered money, small sheaves in the public domain, cakes of figs, bakers’ loaves, strings of fish, pieces of meat, wool shearings [as they come] from the country of origin, stalks of flax and strips of purple wool, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “Anything which has in it something unusual, must be proclaimed. How is this so? If he found a fig cake with a potsherd in it or a loaf with coins in it [he must proclaim them].” Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: “New merchandise need not be proclaimed.”",
+ "And these must be proclaimed: if a man found fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel; or money in a bag, or an empty bag; piles of fruit or piles of money; three coins one on top of the other; small sheaves in the private domain; home-made loaves of bread; wool shearings as they come from the craftsman’s shop; jugs of wine or jugs of oil, these must be proclaimed.",
+ "If a man found pigeons tied together behind a fence or a hedge or on footpaths in the fields, he may not touch them. If he found an object in the dungheap and it was covered up he may not touch it, but if it was exposed he should take it and proclaim. If he found it in a pile of stones or in an old wall it belongs to him. If he found it in a new wall and it was on the outside [of the wall] it belongs to him. If it was on the inner side it belongs to the householder. But if the house had been hired to others, even if a man found something within the house, it belongs to him.",
+ "If he found [something] in a shop, it belongs to him. But if he found it between the counter and the shopkeeper it belongs to the shopkeeper. If he found it in front of the money-changer it belongs to him. But if between the stool and the money-changer it belongs to the money-changer. If a man bought fruit from his fellow or if his fellow sent him fruit and he found coins therein, they belong to him. But if they were tied up he must take them and proclaim them.",
+ "A garment was also included amongst all these things (which one must proclaim, listed in Deut. 22:3). Why was it mentioned separately? To compare [other things] to it: to teach you just as a garment is distinct in that it has special marks and it has those who claim it, so too everything that has special marks and those who claim it must be proclaimed.",
+ "For how long must a man proclaim [what he has found]? Until all of his neighbors know of it, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “At the three Pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the lest festival, to allow him three days to go back to his house, three days to return and one day on which to proclaim his loss.”",
+ "If he (the claimant) named what was lost but could not describe its distinctive marks, he should not give it back to him. And it should not be give to a [known] deceiver, even if he describes its distinctive marks, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “Until your fellow claims it”, [which is to say] until you inquire about your fellow, if he is a deceiver or not. Whatsoever works and eats, let it work and eat [while in the finder’s care]. But whatsoever does not work and eat should be sold, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “And you shall return it to him”, See how you can return it to him. What shall be with the money [from the sale]? Rabbi Tarfon says: “He may use it, therefore if it is lost he is responsible for it.” Rabbi Akiva says: “He may not use it, therefore if it is lost he is not responsible for it.”",
+ "If he found scrolls he must read them once every thirty days, and if he does not know how to read he should unroll them. But he may not learn from them something he has not yet learned, nor may another read with him. If he found clothing he must shake it out once every thirty days, and spread it out for [the clothing’s] own good, but not for his own honor. [If he found] silver or copper vessels he must use them for their own good but not so as to wear them out. [If he found] vessels of gold or glass he may not touch them until Elijah comes. If he found a sack or a large basket or anything that is not generally carried about, he may not carry it.",
+ "What counts as lost property? If he found an ass or a cow grazing on the path, this does not count as lost property. But if he found an ass with its trappings turned over, or a cow running in the vineyards, this is lost property. If he returned it and it escaped again, and he returned it and it escaped again, even four or five times, he is obligated to return it [yet again], since it is stated (Deut. 22:1): “You shall surely return it to your brother”. If [the finder] lost time at work that was worth a sela (an amount of money), he may not say to the owner, “Give me a sela”. Rather the owner need only pay him the wages of an unemployed laborer. If there was a court of law in the that place the finder may stipulate before them [for damages for time lost]. If there was no court of law, before whom can he stipulate? His comes first.",
+ "If he found an [animal] in a stable, he is not responsible for it [even though the stable door was loose and unguarded. But if he found it in the public domain he is responsible for it. If it was in a cemetery he need not contract uncleanness because of it. If his father said to him, “Contract uncleanness”, or if he said to him, “Do not return it”, he may not listen to him. If he unloaded [the ass fallen under its load] and reloaded it and again unloaded it and reloaded it, even four or five times he is still obligated, for it is written, “You must surely raise it with him”. If the owner went and sat down and said, “Since the commandment is upon you, if you wish to unload, unload”, he is not obligated, for it is written “with him”. But if the owner was aged or sick, he is obligated. It is a commandment from the Torah to unload but not to reload. Rabbi Shimon says, “To reload as well.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, “If the beast was carrying more than its proper load he is not obligated [to help unload it], for it is written, “under its load”, [which is to say] a load which it is able to endure.",
+ "If a man found his own lost property and his father’s, his own takes priority. If his own and that of his teacher, his own takes priority. If he found his father’s and his teacher’s, his teacher’s takes priority for his father brought him into this world, but his teacher who taught him wisdom brings him into the world to come. If his father was a Sage, his father’s takes priority. If his father and teacher each were carrying a load, he must first relieve his teacher and afterward relieve his father. If his father and teacher were each taken captive, he must first ransom his teacher and afterward his father. But if his father was a Sage, he must first ransom his father and afterward his teacher."
+ ],
+ [
+ "If a man left an animal or utensils in his fellow’s keeping and they were stolen or lost, and his fellow made restitution and did not want to take an oath – for they have taught: an unpaid guardian may take an oath and be exempt from liability – if the thief is found he must make twofold restitution, and if he slaughtered or sold the [sheep or ox] he must make four of fivefold restitution. To whom does he pay? He with whom the money was deposited. If his fellow (the unpaid guardian) takes an oath and does not want to make restitution, if the thief is found he must make twofold restitution, and if he slaughtered or sold the [sheep or ox] he must make four of fivefold restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the property deposited.",
+ "If a man rented a cow from his fellow and lent it to another, and it died a natural death, the hirer must swear that it died a natural death and the borrower must repay [its value] to the renter. Rabbi Yose said: “How can this one make business out of his friend’s cow? Rather [the value of the cow] returns to the owner.”",
+ "If a man said to two others, “I have robbed one of you 100 zuz and I do not know which of you it is”, or “The father of one of you left me 100 zuz and I do not know whose father it was”, he must give each of them 100 zuz, since he himself admitted liability.",
+ "Two men deposited money with a third, the one 100 zuz and the other 200 zuz. [Afterward] one claimed that he deposited 200 and the other claimed that he deposited 200. He gives this one 100 zuz and this one 100 zuz and the rest remains until Elijah comes. Rabbi Yose says: “If so, what does the deceiver lose? Rather the whole is left until Elijah comes.”",
+ "So too, [two men deposited] vessels with a third, one worth 100 zuz and the other worth 1000 zuz. [Afterward] one claimed that the valuable one was his and the other claimed that the valuable one was his. He gives the less valuable one to one of them and from the value of the more valuable one he gives the value of the lesser one to the other person, and the rest remains until Elijah comes. Rabbi Yose says: “If so, what does the deceiver lose? Rather the whole is left until Elijah comes.”",
+ "If a man deposited produce with his fellow, even if it should perish he may not touch it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “He may sell it before a court of law, since he is like someone who returns a lost object to its owners.”",
+ "When a man leaves produce for his fellow, [and his fellow returns it to the owner] he may exact reductions [due to natural depletion of the produce]. For wheat and rice, nine half kabs to the kor. For barley and durra nine kabs to the kor. For spelt and linseed three seahs to the kor. All is in proportion to the quantity and according to the time [it is left]. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri said: “But what do the mice care about [the quantity]? Won’t they eat [the same amount] whether there is a lot or a little? Rather, he may exact a reduction from only one kor. Rabbi Judah says: “If the quantity was great he may not exact any reduction, since the produce increases in bulk.”",
+ "With wine he may exact [a reduction] of one-sixth. Rabbi Judah says: “One-fifth.” He may exact of him three logs in every one hundred logs of oil one log and a half for sediment and one log and a half for absorption. If the oil was refined he may not exact for sediment. If the jars were old he may not exact for absorption. Rabbi Judah says: “Also if a man sells to his fellow through the year, the buyer must undertake to accept a reduction of one and a half logs because of sediment.",
+ "If a man left a jar with his fellow [to guard] and the owner did not assign it a special place [to be kept] and [the guardian] moved it and it broke: If it was broken while he was handling it: If for his own sake he is liable. If for the sake of the jar, he is not liable. But if it was broken after he had put it in place, whether he moved it for his own sake or for the sake of the jar, he is exempt. If the owner had assigned it a special place, and the guardian moved it and it broke: Whether or not it broke while he was handling it or after he had put it in its place; If for his own sake he is liable, if for the sake of the jar, he is not liable.",
+ "If a man left money in his fellow’s keeping and his fellow bound it up and hung it over his back, or delivered it to his son or his daughter who were minors, or locked it up improperly, he is liable since he did not guard in the way of guardians. If he guarded it in the way of guardians he is exempt.",
+ "If a man left coins with a money-changer: If they were tied up [in a bag], he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost, he is not responsible. If they were loose, he may use they were. Therefore, they were was lost, he is responsible. [If a man left coins] with a householder, Whether they were loose or tied up, he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost he his not responsible. A shopkeeper is like a householder, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says a shopkeeper is like a money-changer.",
+ "If a man makes personal use of a deposit: Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which he put it to use. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which it is claimed. One who expresses his intention to use a deposit [for personal use]: Bet Shammai says he is liable [for any subsequent damage to the deposit, as if he had already made use of it]. Bet Hillel says: He is not liable until he actually uses it, as it says (Exodus 22:7): “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? If he tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log. If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Gold acquires silver, but silver does not acquire gold. Copper acquires silver, but silver does not acquire copper. Bad coins acquire good coins but good coins do not acquire bad coins. An unminted coin acquires a minted coin, but a minted coin does not acquire an unminted coin. Movable property acquires coined money, but coined money does not acquire movable property. This is the general rule: movable property acquires other movable property.",
+ "How is this so? If [the buyer] drew the produce away from [the seller] but did not give over the money, he cannot retract. If [the buyer] gave the money but did not draw the produce away from [the seller], he can retract. But they said: “He that exacted punishment from the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion (at the time of the Tower of Babel) will exact punishment from one who does not keep by his word. Rabbi Shimon says: “He that has the money has the upper hand.”",
+ "Fraud is an overcharge of 4 pieces of silver out of 24 pieces of silver, which make up a sela, one-sixth of the purchase price. Until what time may [he that is defrauded] retract [the sale]? Until he [has time] to show [his purchase] to a merchant or to his kinsman. Rabbi Tarfon gave instruction in Lud: “Fraud is an overcharge of 8 pieces of silver to the seller, a third of the purchase price”, and the merchants of Lod celebrated. He said to them: “He may retract any time within a whole day.” They said to him: “Leave us as we were, Rabbi Tarfon”, and they reverted to the teaching of the Sages.",
+ "Both the buyer and the seller are subject to the law of fraud. Just as the ordinary person is subject to the law of fraud so too is the merchant. Rabbi Judah said: “The law of fraud does not apply to the merchant.” He who has been subjected to [fraud] has the upper hand: if he wants he may say to him, “Give me back my money or give me back the amount you defrauded me.”",
+ "How much may be missing from a sela and still not fall within the rule of fraud? Rabbi Meir says: “Four issars, one issar per dinar.” Rabbi Judah says: “Four pondions, one pondion per dinar.” Rabbi Shimon says: “Eight pondions, two pondions per dinar.”",
+ "Until when may he [that is defrauded] return the coin? In large towns until he has had time to show it to a money-changer. In villages until the Sabbath eve. If he [that had given the coin] recognized it, even after twelve months he should accept it [in return], but [if he does not accept it the one who received it] only has a cause for complaint [against him]. And it is permitted to use it for redeeming the Second Tithe without concern, for [he who would not receive it] is but only a cheapskate.",
+ "Fraud is four pieces of silver. A claim is [a minimum] of two pieces of silver. An admission is [a minimum] of that which is worth a perutah. There are five [rules involving] that which is worth a perutah: An admission is [a minimum] of that which is worth a perutah. A woman can be betrothed with that which is worth a perutah. Someone who benefits a perutah’s worth from that which belongs to the sanctuary has committed sacrilege. One who finds that which is worth a perutah must proclaim it [as a lost object]. One who steals that which is worth a perutah from his fellow and swears [falsely] to him [that he did not steal it], must go after him [to return it] even as far as Medea.",
+ "There are five cases in which one must add a fifth:One who eats terumah, or the terumah taken from the tithe, or the terumah from a tithe taken from doubtfully tithed produce, or dough offering, or first fruits, must add a fifth [to the value of the principle when he makes restitution]. One that redeems [the fruit of] a fourth year plant, or his second tithe, must add a fifth. One that redeems that which he dedicated [to the Temple] must add a fifth. One that derives a perutah’s worth of benefit from that which belongs to the sanctuary must add a fifth [when he makes restitution]. One who steals that which is worth a perutah from his fellow must add a fifth [when he makes restitution].",
+ "These are the things to which the laws of fraud through overcharging do not apply: The sale of slaves, debt documents, land and what belongs to the Temple. They are not subject to twofold restitution, nor fourfold or fivefold restitution. An unpaid guardian does not take an oath [on their account, that he did not damage them] nor does a paid guardian make compensation [if they are lost on his watch]. Rabbi Shimon says: “Holy Things for which he is responsible, are subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging, and Holy Things for which he is not responsible are not subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging.” Rabbi Judah says: “Also one who sells a Torah scroll, and an animal or a pearl they are not subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging.” They (the Sages) said to him: “They only said these.”",
+ "Just as the laws of fraud apply to buying and selling, so to do they apply to the spoken word. One may not say, “How much is this object?, if he does not wish to buy it. If one had repented, another should not say to him, “Remember your earlier deeds”. If one descended from converts, another should not say to him, “Remember the deeds of your ancestors”. For it is said (Exodus 22:21), “And a stranger you shall not wrong or oppress.”",
+ "Produce may not be mixed together with other produce, even new produce with new produce, and needless to say new with old. In truth they permitted sharp wine to be mixed with weak wine, since this improves [the taste]. Wine lees may not be mixed with wine, but [the seller] may give [the buyer] the lees that come from the same wine. One whose wine has been mixed with water may not sell it in a store unless he informs [the buyer] and not to a merchant even if he has informed him, since [the merchant would buy it] only to deceive with it. In a place where they are accustomed to put water in wine, they may do so.",
+ "A merchant may buy from five threshing floors and put the produce into a storage chamber, or from five wine-presses and put into one jug, as long as he doesn’t intend to mix them [for purposes of fraud]. Rabbi Judah says: “A storekeeper should not distribute parched corn or nuts to children, for that accustoms them to come [only] to him.” But the Sages permit. And he may not lower the price. But the Sages says: “Let him be remembered for good [if he lowers the price].” He may not sift crushed beans, according to Abba Shaul. But the Sages permit. But they agree that he should not sift them [only] at the entry of the storage chamber, since he would be a deceiver of the eye. He should not beautify what he sells, whether humans, cattle or utensils."
+ ],
+ [
+ "What is usury (neshech) and what is increase (tarbit)? It is usury (neshech) when a man lends a sela for five dinars, or two seahs of wheat for three, because he bites (noshech) [off too much]. And what is increase? When a man increases [his gains] by [selling] produce. How is this so? [If] one bought wheat at a golden dinars [=25 silver dinars] for a kor when such was the market price, and then wheat rose to thirty [silver] dinars [per kor]. [If] he said to him, “Give me my wheat since I would sell it and buy wine with the proceeds” and the other said, “Let your wheat be reckoned with me at thirty dinars and you now have a claim on me for wine [to that value], although the creditor has no wine.",
+ "One who lends money to his fellow may not dwell in his courtyard for free or rent it from him at a reduced rate, since that counts as usury. One may increase rent-charge [not paid in advance] but not purchase price [not paid in advance]. How so? If his fellow rented him his courtyard, and said to him, “If you pay me now the cost is 10 selas per year, but if you pay me on a monthly basis, the rent is one sela per month”, this is permitted. However, if he sold him his field, and said to him, “If you pay me now it is yours for 1,000 zuz, but if you pay me at the time of threshing it will be 1,200 zuz”, it is forbidden.",
+ "If a man sold a field, and the buyer gave him part of the price and he said to the buyer, “Pay me the rest of the price whenever you wish and then take what is yours”, this is forbidden. If a man lent another money on the security of his field and said to him, “If you do not pay me within three years it will be mine”, then it becomes his. This is what Boethus the son of Zunin used to do with the consent of the Sages.",
+ "One may not set up a shopkeeper on the condition of receiving half the profit, or give him the money to buy produce on the condition of receiving half the profit, unless he pays him his wage as a laborer. One may not set out his hens [for another to raise them and hatch their eggs] in order to share the profits, nor evaluate calves or foals [and give them to his fellow to raise] in order to share the profit, unless he pays him a wage for his labor and cost of the food. But one may receive the care of calves and foals in return for half the profits, and rear them until they reach a third of their growth, and donkeys until they can carry a burden.",
+ "One may evaluate cows and donkeys and anything that works and eats [and give them to one’s fellow to raise] in order to share the profit. Where the custom is to share the offspring immediately at birth, they do so; and where the custom is to first rear them [and then give them over to the owner], they do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “One may evaluate a calf with its mother, and a foal with its mother [and give them to one’s fellow to raise in order to share the profit.] A tenant may offer increased rent in exchange for a loan to improve his field, without fearing that this is usury.",
+ "One may not accept a flock from an Israelite on “iron terms” [that the one who tends the flock shares the profits from the flock and accepts full responsibility for their value]. But one may accept a flock from a gentile on “iron terms” and money may be borrowed from them and one may lend them money. The same is true with a resident alien. An Israelite may lend the money of a gentile with the knowledge [and consent] of the gentile but not with the knowledge of an Israelite.",
+ "One may not set a price for produce before its market-price is known. After its market-price is known, one may set a price, for even though this one does not have [the produce] another does have it. If he was the first to harvest his crop, he may set a price with his fellow over grain stacked in a heap, or over grapes in their harvesting basket, or over olives in a vat, or over the clay-balls of the potter, or over lime as soon as the limestone is sunk in the kiln. One may set a price for manure at any time of the year. Rabbi Yose says: “One may not set a price over manure unless the seller has manure on the dungheap.” But the Sages permit it. One may set the price at the cheapest rate [that will be at the time of delivery]. Rabbi Judah says: “Even if he didn’t set the price at the cheapest rate he may say, “Give me at the such a price or give me back my money.”",
+ "[A landowner] may lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat, if it is for planting but not if it is for food. For Rabban Gamaliel used to lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat when it was for planting. And if he lent it when the price was high and it afterward fell, or when it was low and it afterward rose, he used to take wheat back at the lower rate, not because such was the rule but because he wanted to be strict upon himself.",
+ "One should not say to his fellow, “Lend me a kor of wheat and I will repay you at the threshing time”, but he may say, “Lend it to me until my son comes”, or “until I find my key”. But Hillel used to forbid this. Moreover Hillel used to say, “A woman may not lend a loaf of bread to her neighbor unless she determines its value in money, lest wheat should rise in price and they are found to be engaging in usury.”",
+ "One may say to his fellow, “Help me weed and I will help you weed” or “Help me hoe and I will help you hoe.” But one may not say, “Help me weed and I will help you hoe”, or “Help me hoe and I will help you weed”. All days of the dry season are accounted alike, and all days of the rainy season are accounted alike. One may not say to another, “Help me plow in the dry season and I will help you plow in the rainy season.” Rabban Gamaliel says: “There is interest that is paid in advance and interest that is paid afterward. How is this so? If a one intended to borrow from another and made him a present and said, “This is so that you will lend to me”, this is interest that is paid in advance. If one borrowed from another and repaid it to him, and then sent a present and said, “This is for your money of which you have not had use while it was with me”, this is interest that is paid afterward. Rabbi Shimon says: “There is interest paid in words: one may not say to his creditor, “Know that such and such a person has come form such and such a place.”",
+ "These are the one who transgress a negative commandment: the lender, the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses. And the Sages say, “The scribe also.” They transgress the commandment, “You will not give him your money upon interest” (Leviticus 25:37), and “You shall not take usury from him” (Leviticus 25:36) and “You shall not be to him as a creditor” (Exodus 22:24), and “Nor shall you place upon him usury” (ibid.) and “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind, and you will fear your God, I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:14)."
+ ],
+ [
+ "If one hired craftsmen and they deceived each other, they have no legally valid complaint against each other, but only cause for complaint. If one hired a donkey-driver or a wagon-driver to bring litter-bearers or pipers for a bride or for the dead, or laborers to take his flax out of the steep, or any matter that would be lost if delayed, and they retracted, if it was a place where there were no others [who could be hired for the same wage] he may hire others at their (the original workers) expense or he may deceive them.",
+ "If one hired craftsmen and they retracted, they are at a disadvantage. If the householder (the employer) retracted he is at a disadvantage. Whosoever changes [the conditions of a contract] is at a disadvantage. And anyone who retracts is at a disadvantage.",
+ "If one hires a donkey to drive it through hill country and he drove it through a valley, or to drive it through the valley and he drove it through the hill country, even though the distance of each was ten miles, if the donkey died the hirer is liable. If a man hired a donkey and it went blind or was conscripted into the king’s service, the owner may say to the hirer, “Here is yours before you” [and he need not replace the donkey]. [But] if it died or was broken, he must give him a new donkey. If one hires a donkey to drive it through hill country and he drove it through a valley, if it slipped he is not liable, but if it overheated he is liable. [If one hires a donkey] to drive it through a valley and he drove it through hill country, if it slipped he is liable, but if it overheated he is not liable. But if [it overheated] due to the ascent he is liable.",
+ "If one hired a cow to plow in the hill country and he plowed in the valley, if the plowshare was broken he is exempt. [If one hired a cow to plow] in the valley and he plowed in the hill country, if the plowshare was broken he is liable. [If one hired it] to thresh beans and he threshed grain [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is exempt. [If one hired it] to thresh grain and he threshed beans [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is liable.",
+ "If one hired a donkey to carry wheat and he used it to carry [a like weight] of barley, he is liable [if the donkey was injured]. [If he hired it to carry] grain and he used it to carry [a like weight of] chopped straw he is liable, since the greater bulk is more difficult to carry. [If he hired it to carry] a letech of wheat and it carried a letech of barley he is not liable. But if he increased the weight, he is liable. What increase in weight renders him liable? Symmachos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: “One seah for a camel and three kavs for a donkey.”",
+ "All craftsmen are accounted paid guardians. But all that have said, “Take what is yours and give me the money”, are accounted unpaid guardians. If one man said to another, “Guard that for me and I will guard this for you”, he is accounted a paid guardian. If one said, “Guard this for me”, and the other said “Put it down in front of me”, he is accounted an unpaid guardian.",
+ "If one gave a loan and took a pledge he is accounted a paid guardian. Rabbi Judah says: “If he lent him money he is accounted an unpaid guardian; if he lent him produce he is accounted a paid guardian.” Abba Shaul, “One may hire out a poor man’s pledge and thereby reduce the debt, for in such a way he is like one who returns lost property.”",
+ "If one moved a jar from place to place and broke it, whether he is a paid guardian or an unpaid guardian, he may take an oath [that he did not break it through neglect and be exempt from liability]. Rabbi Eliezer says: “[I too have heard that] in either case he may take an oath, but I wonder whether in either case the oath is valid.”"
+ ],
+ [
+ "If one hired laborers and told them to work early or to work late, he has no right to compel them to do so where the custom is not to work early or not to work late. In a place where the custom is to give them their food he should give it to them, and where the custom is to provide them with sweet food, he must give it to them. Everything should follow local custom. It once happened that Rabbi Yochanan ben Mattia said to his son: “Go and hire laborers for us”. He went and struck a deal to provide them with food. When he came to his father, his father said to him, “My son, even if you make them a banquet like Solomon’s in his time you will not have fulfilled your obligation to them. For they are sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But, rather, before they begin to work go and say to them, “On condition that I am not bound to give you more than bread and beans only.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “It was not necessary to speak thus, for everything should follow local use.”",
+ "These may eat [of the fruits among which they work] by the law of the Torah: one who works on that which is still connected to the ground [may eat of it] when the work is finished [at the time of harvest]; and one who works on that which is already detached from the ground [may eat of it] before the work is completely finished. This applies only to that which grows from the ground. These are they that may not eat; one that works on what is still growing while the work is still unfinished; and one that works on what is already detached from the ground after the work is finished, and [one may not eat] of what does not grow from the soil.",
+ "If one was working with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, or even with his shoulders only, he still may eat. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Judah says, “Only if he works with both his hands and his feet.”",
+ "If one was working with figs he may not eat grapes, and if among grapes he may not eat figs. But he may refrain [from eating] until he reaches the best produce and then eat. In no case have they said [that he may eat] save during the time of his work. But because of the principle of restoring lost property to its owner they have said, “Field laborers may eat as they go from one furrow to another or as they return from the winepress. And a donkey [may eat] while it is unloading.”",
+ "A laborer may eat cucumbers even to a denar’s worth, and dates even to a denar’s worth. Rabbi Elazar ben Hisma says: “A laborer may not eat more than the value of his wages. But the Sages permit it, but they teach a man not to be gluttonous as to close the door against himself.",
+ "One may exact terms for himself and for his son or daughter that are of age, and for his slave or female slave that are of age, and for his wife, since these have understanding. But he may not exact terms for his son and daughter that are not of age, or for his slave or female slave that are not of age, or for his cattle, since these have no understanding.",
+ "If one hired laborers to work among his fourth-year plantings, they not eat from them. If he had not told them [that they were fourth-year plantings] he must first redeem the fruit and then allow them to eat. If his fig-cakes broke up or his jars burst open, they may not eat from them. If he had not told them [that they were liable to be tithed] he must first separate the tithes and then allow them to eat.",
+ "Those that guard [gathered] produce may eat from it because that is the custom of the land and not because that is the law of the Torah. There are four kinds of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid guardian and a hirer. An unpaid guardian may take an oath [that he had not been neglectful] in every case [of loss or damage and be free of liability]. A borrower must make restitution in every case. A paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was injured, or taken captive or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen.",
+ "If one wolf [attacked the flock that he was watching] it does not count as an unavoidable accident [for which no blame is placed on the guardian]. Two wolves do count as an unavoidable accident. Rabbi Judah says: “In a time where wolves are commonly attacking the settlements, even one wolf is considered to be an unavoidable accident.” Two dogs do not count as an unavoidable accident. Yadua the Babylonian said in the name of Rabbi Meir says: “If [two dogs came] from one direction they do not count as an unavoidable accident, but if [they came] from two directions they count as an unavoidable accident. A bandit counts as an unavoidable accident. A lion or a bear or a leopard or a panther or a serpent counts as an unavoidable accident. When [is this so]? When they come of themselves. But if he took the flock to a place of wild animals or bandits they do not count as an unavoidable accident.",
+ "If a beast died a natural death this counts as an unavoidable accident [for which a hirer or paid guardian is not liable]. But if he tortured it and it died it does not count as an unavoidable accident [and the hirer and paid guardian would be liable]. If it was led up to the top of a crag and it fell down and died, this does not count as an unavoidable accident. An unpaid guardian may make a stipulation that he will be exempt from taking an oath, and a borrower [may make a stipulation that he will be exempt] from making restitution, and a paid guardian and a hirer [may make a stipulation that they will be exempt] from taking an oath or from making restitution.",
+ "If one makes a stipulation contrary to that which is written in the Torah he stipulation is void. Any stipulation that mentions first the action is void. Any stipulation that can in the end be fulfilled and was laid down as a condition from the beginning, such a condition is valid."
+ ],
+ [
+ "If one borrowed a cow together with the service of its owner, or hired its owner together with the cow, or if he borrowed the service of the owner or hired him, and afterward borrowed the cow, and the cow died he is not liable, for it is written, “If its owner was with it no restitution need be made” (Exodus 22:14). But if he first borrowed the cow and afterward borrowed or hired the service of its owner, and the cow died, he is liable, for it is written, “Its owner not being with it, he must make restitution” (Exodus 22:13).",
+ "If one borrowed a cow, and borrowed it for half a day and hired it for half a day; or borrowed it for one day and hired it for the next; or if he borrowed one cow, and hired another and the cow died if he that lent the cow says: “It was the borrowed cow that died”, [or] “On the day when it was borrowed it died”, [or] “During the time when it was borrowed it died” and the other one says: “I don’t know”, he is liable. If the hirer says, “It is the hired one that died”, [or] “On the day when it was hired it died”, and the other says, “I do not know”, he is not liable. If the one says, “It was borrowed”, and the other says, “It was hired”, the hirer must take an oath that it was the hired one that died. If the one says, “I do not know”, and the other says, “I do not know”, they share in the loss.",
+ "If one borrowed a cow and the owner sent it by the hand of his son or his slave or his agent, or by the hand of the borrower’s son or slave or agent and it died [on the way], the borrower is not liable. But if the borrower said, “Send it to me by the hand of my son or my slave or my agent, or by the hand of your son or your slave or your agent”, or if the lender said, “I am sending it to you by the hand of my son or my slave or my agent”, or “by the hand of your son or your slave or your agent”, and the borrower said, “Send it”, and he sent it and it died [on the way], the borrower is liable. So, too, when the cow is returned.",
+ "If one swapped a cow for a donkey, and it gave birth, So too if one sold his slave and she gave birth, [And] one (the seller) says, “It was born before I sold her”, and the other (the buyer) says, “It was born after I bought her”, they shall divide [the value of what was born]. If one had two slaves, one large and the other small, or two fields, one large and the other small,[And he sold one of them], If the buyer says, “I bought the large one” and the other says, “I don’t know”, the buyer can rightly claim the large one. If the seller said, “I sold the small one” and the buyer said, “I do not know”, he may only take the small one. If one said, “It was the large one” and the other said, “It was the small one”, the seller must take an oath that it was the small one that he sold [and the buyer can only take the small one]. If one said, “I do not know”, and the other said, “I do not know”, they shall divide the value [of both slaves or fields].",
+ "If one sold his olive trees as firewood and they bore fruit that gave less than a quarter-log of oil per seah, this belongs to the [new] owner of the olive trees. If they bore fruit that gave a quarter-log of oil [or more] per seah, and the one said, “It was my trees that produced it”, and the other said, “It was my land that produced it”, let them share the produce. If a flood washed away a man’s olive trees and set them in the midst of his fellow’s field [where they bore fruit], and the one said, “It was my trees that produced it”, and the other said, “It was my land that produced it”, let them share the produce.",
+ "If one leased a house to his fellow in the rainy season, he cannot make him leave it [during the time] from Sukkot to Pesach. In the summer, [he must give him] thirty days [warning]. And in large cities, whether it is during the rainy season or the summer [he must give] twelve months [warning]. [If one leased] a shop [to his fellow], whether in large cities or small towns, [he must give] twelve months [warning]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If it is a shop occupied by bakers or dyers [he must give] three years [warning].",
+ "If one rented a house to his fellow, he is obligated to provide it with a door, a bolt a lock and anything which is the work of a craftsman. However, that which is not the work of a craftsman, the tenant must make himself. The manure [which collects in the courtyard] belongs to the owner of the house, and the tenant can only claim the refuse from the oven and the stove.",
+ "If one rented a house to his fellow by the year and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the tenant. If he rented it by the month and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the owner. It once happened in Tzippori that a person leased a bath-house from his fellow at “twelve golden dinars a year, one dinar per month”, and [when the year became a leap year] the case came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and Rabbi Yose, and they said: “Let them share the extra month.”",
+ "If one rented a house to his fellow and it fell down, the owner must build him a new house. If it was small he may not make it larger, and if it was large he may not make it smaller. If it was one house, he may not make it two; if it was two houses he may not make it one. He may not reduce or increase the number of windows, unless it is with both of their consent."
+ ],
+ [
+ "If one leased a field from his fellow and the custom of the place was to cut the crops, he must cut them; If the custom was to uproot them, he must uproot them; If the custom was to plough after reaping, he must plough. Everything should follow local custom. Just as they share the grain, so too they share the chopped straw and the stubble. Just as they share the wine, so too they share the [dead] branches and the reeds [used to prop the vines]. And both parties must [at the outset] provide [their share of] the reeds.",
+ "If one leased a field from his fellow and it was an irrigated field or a field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may not give [the owner] less than his agreed rental. But if he had said, “Lease me this irrigated field, or this field with trees”, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may give less than the prescribed rental.",
+ "If one leased a field from his fellow and he let it lie fallow, they assess how much it was likely to have yielded and he must pay the owner accordingly, since he wrote [in the leasing agreement]: “If I suffer the land to lie fallow and do not till it, I will pay thee at the rate of its highest yield.”",
+ "If one leased a field from his fellow and he did not want to weed it, and he said to the owner, “What do you care, as long as I pay you the agreed rental?”, they do not listen to him, for the owner can say to him, “Tomorrow you will leave the field and it won’t bring forth anything but weeds.”",
+ "If one leased a field from his fellow and it was not fruitful, if there was enough produce to make a heap, he must still tend to it. Rabbi Judah says: “What type of measure is a ‘heap’? Rather, [he must tend to it] only if it yields as much grain as was sown there.”",
+ "If one leased a field from his fellow and the locusts devoured the crop or it was blasted [by strong winds which caused the grain to be prematurely separated from the stalks], if it was a region-wide mishap he may reduce the amount of the rental agreement. If it was not a region-wide mishap, he may not reduce the amount of the rental agreement. Rabbi Judah says: “If he had leased it from him for a fixed amount of money, in neither case may he reduce the amount of the rental agreement.”",
+ "If one leased a field from his fellow in return for ten kors of wheat a year and it produced bad wheat, he may pay him out of this crop. If [it produced] good wheat he may not say, “I will buy other wheat from the market”, rather he must pay him from the crop of that field.",
+ "If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow barley, he may not sow wheat; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] wheat, he may sow barley. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel forbids this. If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow grain, he may not sow beans; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] beans, he may sow grain. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel forbids this.",
+ "If one leased a field from his fellow for but a few years he may not sow flax and he has no right to cut beams from the sycamore tree. If he leased it for seven years he may sow flax the first year and he has a right to cut beams from the sycamore tree.",
+ "If one leased a field from his fellow for “a week of years” (seven years) for 700 zuz, the Seventh Year is included in the number. If he leased it for “seven years” for 700 zuz, the Seventh Year is not included in the number.",
+ "One that is hired during the day collects his wages all during [the ensuing] night. One that is hired during the night collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day. One that is hired by the hour collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day or [the ensuing] night. If one was hired by the week, or by the month, or by the year, or by the week of years, if his time of hire expired during the day, he collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day. If his time of hire expired during the night, he collects his wages all during [the ensuing] night and day.",
+ "The laws “You must pay him his wages on the same day” (Deut. 24:15) and “The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until the morning” (Lev. 19:13) apply both to the hire of a man or of a beast or of utensils. When is this so? When the employee has laid claim to it, but if he had not laid claim to it the employer does not commit a transgression. If he gave him a draft on a shopkeeper or moneychanger [the employer] does not commit a transgression [even though the employee has not yet collected]. If an employee [claimed his wages] within the set time he may take an oath and take his wages. [But] if the set time had passed he may not take an oath and take his wages. If witnesses testified that he had claimed his wages at the set time [and was not paid], he may take an oath and receive his wages. The law “You must pay him his wages on the same day” applies also to the resident alien, but not the law, “The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until the morning”.",
+ "If one lent one’s fellow, he may exact a pledge from him only with the permission of a court, and he may not enter his house to take the pledge, as it is states, “You shall stand outside” (Deut. 24:1. If the borrower had two utensils, he may take one but must give back the other. And he must give back the pillow at night and the plow during the day. And if the creditor dies he need not return the pledge to his heirs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Even to the debtor himself he need only return the pledge within thirty days [of the loan], and after thirty days he may sell it with the consent of the court. A pledge may not be taken from a widow, whether she be rich or poor, as it states, “Do not take the a widow’s garment as a pledge” (Deut. 24:17). If one takes a millstone as a pledge he violates a negative commandment and he is also in violation of both parts [of the millstone], as it states, “Do not take a mill or an upper millstone as a pledge” (Deut. 24:6). And they didn’t say just an upper millstone or a mill but anything that is necessary for food, as it states, “for that would be taking someone’s life as a pledge” (ibid.)."
+ ],
+ [
+ "If a house (the first story) and an upper room (the second story) belonging to two persons (each owning) fell down, the two share in the wood and the stones and the earth. And they consider which stones were the more likely to have been broken. If one of them recognizes that some of the stones were his, he may take them and they count as part of his share.",
+ "If there was a house (the first story) and an upper room (the second story) belonging to two people, and the [floor of the] upper room broke and the owner of the house (the bottom story) did not want to fix it, the owner of the upper room may come down and dwell below, until the owner [of the bottom story] fixes [the floor of the] upper room. Rabbi Yose says: “He that dwells below should provide the beams and he that dwells above the plastering.",
+ "If a house (the bottom story) and an upper room belonging to two persons (each owning fell down, and the owner of the upper room told the owner of the house (the bottom story) to rebuild it, and he did not want to rebuild it, the owner of the upper room may rebuild the house below and live in it until the other repays him what he has spent. Rabbi Judah says: “He would then [after being reimbursed] have been dwelling on his fellow’s property and he should [therefore] pay him rent. Rather the owner of the upper room should rebuild both the house below and the upper room and put a roof on the upper room, and live in the house below until the other repays him what he has spent.”",
+ "So, too, if an olive press was built in a rock and another had a garden on top of it, and [the olive press] was in part broken down, the owner of the garden may come down and sow below until the other rebuilds the ceiling of his olive press. If a wall or a tree fell into the public domain and caused damage, the owner is not liable to make restitution. If a set time had been given to him to cut down the tree or pull down the wall, and they fell down within the time, he is not liable. If after that time, he is liable.",
+ "If one’s wall was near his fellow’s garden and it fell down and his fellow said to him, “Clear away your stones”, and he answered, “They have become yours”, they do not listen to him. If after the other (the owner of the garden) had accepted he (the owner of the wall) said to him, “Here is your expenditures and I will take back what is mine”, they do not listen to him. If one hired a laborer to help him in his work with chopped straw and stubble, and the laborer said to him, “Give me my wages”, and he said to him, “Take as your wages that with which you have labored”, they do not listen to him. If after the other (the employee) had accepted he (the employer) said to him, “Here are your wages and I will take what is mine”, they do not listen to him. One who removes his manure into the public domain: from the time he removes it another may take it to manure [his fields]. One may not soak clay or make bricks in the public domain, but clay may be kneaded in the public domain but not bricks. One who builds in the public domain: one brings the stones and another builds (immediately). And if he causes damage, he pays what he has damaged. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “He may, indeed, make preparation for his work for thirty days [in the public domain].",
+ "If there were two gardens [in terraces] one above the other and vegetables grew between them: Rabbi Meir says: “They belong to the upper garden.” Rabbi Judah says: “They belong to the lower garden.” Rabbi Meir said: “If [the owner of] the upper garden wished to remove his soil there would be no vegetables.” Rabbi Judah said: “If [the owner of] the lower garden wished to fill up his garden [with soil] there would be no vegetables. Rabbi Meir said: “Since each is able to thwart the other, we should consider from where these vegetables derive their life.” Rabbi Shimon said: “Whatever [the owner of ] the upper garden can take by stretching out his hand belongs to him, and the rest belongs to [the owner of] the lower garden."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Open Mishnah.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Open Mishnah.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ffa0df1d5be6782390cdc64b779a21f6c72a5dc0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Open Mishnah.json
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Metzia",
+ "versionSource": "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mishnah",
+ "versionTitle": "Open Mishnah",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "CC-BY-SA",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה פתוחה",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא מציעא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [],
+ [
+ "",
+ "",
+ "",
+ "",
+ "",
+ "",
+ "",
+ "",
+ "",
+ "",
+ "A worker hired by the day can collect [the worker’s wages] all of the [following] night. A worker hired by the night can collect it all of the [following] day. A worker hired by the hour can collect it all day and night. A worker hired by the week, month, year, or period of seven years, if his time expires by day, can collect [his wages] all of [that] day; [If the worker’s time] expires by night, he can collect it all [that] night and the [following] day.",
+ "Whether it be the hire of person, the hire of a beast, or the hire of utensils, it is subject to [the commandment], “In the same day you shall give him his hire” [Deuteronomy 24:15], and it is subject to [the commandment], “The wages of a hired servant shall not stay with you all night until the morning.” [Leviticus 19:13.] When is that? When [the worker] claimed [the wages]; [But if] he did not claim [the wages], [the employer] does not violate [the commandment]. If [the employer] gave [the worker] a draft on a shopkeeper or a moneychanger, [the employer] does not violate [the commandment]. A hired worker, within the set time, swears [that he has not yet been paid] and is paid. But if the set time passed, [the worker] cannot swear and receive payment; Yet if there are witnesses that [the worker] claimed payment [within the set time], [the worker] can [still] swear and receive [payment]. A resident alien is subject to [the commandment], “In the same day you shall give him his hire,” But not to [the commandment], “The wages of a hired servant shall not stay with you all night until the morning.”"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc98bd5737353b9b269469ff326c96f88b04b73e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json
@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Metzia",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+ "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "CC0",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא מציעא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "Two are holding a garment. One says, \"I found it,\" and the other says, \"I found it.\" [If] one says, \"all of it is mine\" and the other says, \"all of it is mine.\" This one shall swear that he owns no less than half of it, and this one shall swear that he owns no less than half of it, and they shall divide it [between them.] [If] one says, \"all of it is mine\" and the other says \"half of it is mine.\" The one who says \"all of it is mine\" shall swear that he owns no less than three quarters of it; and the one who says \"half of it is mine\" shall swear that he owns no less than one quarter of it. He [the former] takes three quarters and he [the latter] takes one quarter.",
+ "Two [men] were riding on an animal, or one was riding and one was leading. One says, \"all of it is mine,\" and the other one says, \"all of it is mine.\" This one shall swear that he owns no less than half of it, and the other one shall swear that he owns no less than half of it, and they will divide it. In a situation where they agree, or they have witnesses, they divide it without an oath.",
+ "One was riding on an animal and saw an object, and said to his fellow, \"give it to me.\" The [other] took it and said, \"I have acquired it,\" [then] he has acquired it [for himself.] If the [other] gave it to him [the one riding the animal] and then said, \"I acquired it [for myself] first,\" [it is as if] he said nothing.",
+ "If he saw an object and fell on it, and another came and took possession of it, the one who took possession of it acquired it. If he saw them running after an object, or after a deer [with a] broken [leg], or after hatchlings that have not yet flown, and he said, \"my field has acquired it for me,\" [the field] has acquired it for him. If the deer was running normally, or the hatchlings were flying, and he said, \"my field has acquired it for me,\" [it is as if] he said nothing.",
+ "Something found by his minor son or daughter, or something found by his gentile servant or maid-servant, or something found by his wife - these belong to him. Something found by his adult son or daughter, or something found by his Hebrew servant or maid-servant, or something found by his wife whom he divorced, even if he has not yet paid her the value of her ketubah [monetary settlement payable to a married woman upon divorce or the death of her husband], these belong to them.",
+ "If one finds debt documents: if it includes mortgaged property, it should not be returned [to the creditor], for the court may seize the property from them [because of the strength of the document]. However, if there is no mortgaged property mentioned, it may be returned, for the courts will not seize property from them - these are the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say, in either case, it should not be returned, because the court may [nevertheless] seize property from them [because of the strength of the document].",
+ "If one found divorce documents, or a document of manumission of slaves, a [last] will, the deed of a gift, or receipts; one should not return [them to the writer], for I might say, \"They were written, and then I changed my mind [and decided] not to give them.\"",
+ "If one found court-ordered property assessments, allowances [for a widow to sell property] for food, documents of chalitsah [ceremony performed to release a widow of a childless man from the obligation of Levirate marriage] or mi'un [refusal by an orphaned girl, married off while a minor by her mother or brothers, to remain in the marriage; the marriage is ended by her refusal, without a divorce], documents of arbitration, or [documents of] any court action, one should return [these documents]. [However,] if one found them in a packet or a bag, wrapped together or as a bundle of documents, he should return [them]. And how is a bundle of documents [defined]? - three tied together. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says, if the document records a borrower from three lenders, it should be returned to the borrower; three borrowers from one lender, should be returned to the lender. If one found a document in his files but doesn't know its history, it should be left until Eliyahu comes [and resolves it]. However, if there are postscripts, one should follow what is in the postscripts."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Which are the found items that belong to him [the finder], and which ones must he announce? These are the found items which belong to him [the finder]: if one found scattered fruit, scattered money, sheaves in the public domain, fig-cakes, baker's bread, strings of fish, cuts of meat, wool as it is from the country, bundles of flax and purple wool - these are his [the finder's,] these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says, anything which has on it a change, one must announce. How so? If one found a cake with a clay shard in it, or a sheaf with money within it. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, any merchandise, one does not need to announce.",
+ "And these [objects] one is required to announce: if one found fruit in a vessel or a vessel as is, money in a purse or any purse as is, heaps of fruit or heaps of money, three coins stacked one on top of another, sheaves in private property, or home-baked bread, shearings of wool bought from the artisan, jugs of wine or oil - these one must announce.",
+ "If one found, behind a hedge or a fence, a group of tied-together fledglings, or in the pathways of fields - one should not touch them. If one found a vessel in a trash-heap: if it was covered, one should not touch it, but if it was exposed, one should take and announce [it]. If one found [an object] in a stone-pile or in an old wall, these belong to him [the finder]. If one found [an object] in a new wall: from the middle [of the wall] to the outside, these belong to him [the finder], [but] from the middle [of the wall] to the inside, these belong to the owner of the house. If the house had been rented to others, [then] even something [found] within the house [itself] these belong to him [the finder].",
+ "If one found [an object] in a store, these belong to him [the finder]. Between the counter and the shopkeeper, these belong to the shopkeeper. In front of the money-changer, these belong to him [the finder]. Between the seat and the money-changer, these belong to the money-changer. The one who buys fruits from another or who sent fruit to another, and within them found coins, these belong to him [the finder]. [But] if they were tied [together], one should take [them] and announce [their finding].",
+ "Even a garment is in the same general rule of all of these. Why [did the Torah] specify it? To compare to it, to say to you: just as a garment is special in that it has markings, and [if lost] there are claimants for it, so too anything which has markings and has claimants for it, one must announce [it].",
+ "And until when must one announce [the object]? Until one's neighbors knew of it - these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says, the three pilgrimage festivals, and after the last festival, seven days - in order that [someone] will go home - three, and will return - three, and will announce - one day.",
+ "If one described the lost object but not its markings, one should not give [it] to him. And the deceiver, even though he described its markings, one should not give [it] to him, as the Torah states, (Deuteronomy 22:2) \"Until your brother sought darash it\": Until you investigate tidrosh [whether] your brother is a fraud [or] if he is not a fraud. Anything which does work and eats, one may use it [to do work] and feed it. Something which does not work but does eat, [the finder] must sell it, as the Torah states, (Deuteronomy 22:2) \"You shall return it to him\": See how you shall return it to him. What should be [done] with the money? Rabbi Tarfon says, one may use them - therefore, if [the money] was lost, he is responsible for them. Rabbi Akiva says, one may not use them, therefore if [the money] was lost, he is not responsible for them.",
+ "If one found sefarim [books of the Tanach written in holiness, on parchment, and used for personal or public study, or for reading aloud in public. Sometimes the intent is specifically Torah scrolls], one should read from them once every thirty days and if one does not know how to read, he should roll them. However, one should not learn from them for the first time, nor may one read [from them] with someone else. If one found clothing, one should shake it once every thirty days, and spread it out [according] to its need, but not to honor himself [by hanging it in his home]. Utensils of silver or bronze, one should use them [according] to their need, but not to wear them out. Utensils of gold or glass one should not touch them until Eliyahu comes. If one found a bag or a box, or anything which is undignified to pick up - one should not pick [it] up.",
+ "What is a lost object? If one found a donkey or a cow grazing along the path, this is not a lost object; a donkey with its gear overturned, a cow running between vineyards, this is a lost object. If [the finder] returned the animal and it ran away, he returned it and it ran away, even four or five times, he is obligated to return it; as the Torah states, (Deuteronomy 22:1) \"You shall surely return them.\" If [the finder's] lost time is worth a sela, he should not say to him [the owner]: \"Give me a sela;\" but he should give him his wage like an idle laborer. If there is a court there, he may bring it before the court; if there is not a court there before which to bring it, his own [need] takes precedence.",
+ "If one found [an animal] in the stable, he is not obligated with it; [if it is in] the public domain, he is obligated with it. If it was in a cemetery, he may not impurify [himself] for it. If his father said to him 'impurify [yourself]', or 'do not return [a lost object]', he should not listen to him. If [a person] unloaded [an animal] and [the owner] reloaded [the animal], he unloaded and he reloaded, even four or five times, he is obligated [to unload]; as the Torah states, (Exodus 23:5): \"You shall surely relieve.\" If [the owner] went and sat down, and said to the passer-by: 'Since the mitsvah is upon you, if it is your will to unload [the animal], do so,' [the latter] is exempt; as the Torah states, (Exodus 23:5) \"With him.\" If he is old or sick, he is obligated. It is a mitsvah from the Torah to unload [an animal], but not to reload [it]. Rabbi Shimon says: \"Even to reload.\" Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: \"If [the weight] was more than it was able to carry, it is not necessary for him, as the Torah states, (Exodus 23:5): \"Under its burden\": a burden that it is able to withstand.",
+ "If his lost object and his father's lost object [are to be attended to], his lost object takes precedence; his own lost object and his teacher's lost object, his own takes precedence; his father's lost object and his teacher's lost object, his teacher's takes precedence, because his father brought him into this world, but his teacher, who taught him wisdom, brings him to live [in] the world to come; if his father is a sage, [the object] of his father takes precedence. If his father and his teacher were carrying a burden, he should relieve his teacher, and afterward relieve his father. If his father and his teacher were in prison, he should redeem his teacher and afterward he should redeem his father; if his father was a sage, he should redeem his father and afterward he should redeem his teacher."
+ ],
+ [
+ "[If] one deposited [for safekeeping] an animal or vessels with his neighbor and they were stolen or lost, if he paid and did not want to swear [the prescribed oath], because they [the sages] said that an unpaid guardian must swear and be exempt [from liability, and if afterward] the thief is found, he must pay double. [If the thief] butchered or sold the object, he must pay four or fivefold. To whom does he pay? To him who [kept] the deposit with him. [If the guardian] swore the [prescribed oath] and did not want to pay, and [afterward] the thief is found, he must pay double. [If the thief] butchered or sold the object, he must pay four or fivefold. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.",
+ "If one rented a cow from his neighbor, and loans it to another, and the cow dies naturally; the one who rented [the cow] should swear that it died naturally, and the borrower should pay the renter. Rabbi Yosei said: How shall he do business with his neighbor's cow? Rather, the cow [or its value] must be returned to the owners.",
+ "If one said to two [persons]: \"I have robbed one of you of a maneh, but I do not know from which of you;\" or [said]: \"The father of one of you deposited a maneh with me, but I do not know which,\" he must give a maneh to one and a maneh to the other, because he himself admitted it.",
+ "If two [people] deposited money with one, one has deposited a maneh and the other two hundred zuz, [and afterwards] one says: \"The two hundred zuz are mine,\" and the other one says: \"The two hundred zuz are mine,\" [the guardian] shall give a maneh to one and a maneh to the other, and the balance shall be put aside until Eliyahu comes. Rabbi Yosei said: If so, what did the deceiver lose? Rather, everything shall be put aside until Eliyahu comes.",
+ "This [is the same in a case of] two vessels, the value of one is a maneh, and the value of the other is a thousand zuz. One says: \"The [more] valuable is mine,\" and the other one says: \"The [more] valuable is mine.\" He shall give the small [vessel] to one of them, and from the large [vessel], he shall give the value of the small [vessel] to the other, and the balance shall be put aside until Eliyahu comes. Rabbi Yosei said: \"If so, what did the deceiver lose? Rather, everything shall be put aside until Eliyahu comes.",
+ "The one who deposits fruit with his neighbor, even if they are destroyed, the guardian must not touch them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: He should sell them under the supervision of the court because it is like one who restores a lost object to its owners.",
+ "The one who deposits fruit with his neighbor, he may deduct losses as follows: for wheat and rice, nine half-kabim to one kor; for barley and millet, nine-kabim to one kor; and for spelt and linseed, three se'im to one kor. Everything is according to the measure, [and] everything is according to the [length] of time. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri said: What do the mice care? Don't they eat [the same amount] whether from a lot or a little? Rather, he may only deduct a decrease of only one kor. Rabbi Yehuda says: If there was a large quantity, he may not deduct decreases, because [some] is left behind.",
+ "[The guardian] may deduct one-sixth for wine; Rabbi Yehuda says: \"One-fifth only.\" One may deduct three logim of oil from one hundred [logim]: a log and one-half for yeast, and a log and one-half [for the] absorption. If it was purified oil [stored], one cannot deduct [any] yeast; if the vessels were old, he cannot deduct [for] absorption. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the one who sells purified oil to his neighbor all the days of the year. [The purchaser] accepts a [loss of] log and one-half of yeast from one hundred [logim of oil.]",
+ "The one deposits a cask with his neighbor, and the owners do not assign a place [for it] and he moved it and it broke. If it was broken [while] it was in his hand [and it was] for his own need, he is liable; but [if it was] for the need of [the cask], he is exempt. If it broke, from when he placed it, either for his own need or for its need, he is exempt. [If] the owners assigned a place [for it] and he moved it and it broke, whether [it was] in his hand or from when he placed it, [if the move] was for his own need, he is liable, if it was for its need, he is exempt.",
+ "The one who deposited coins with his neighbor, and he tied them up [in a package] and carried it over his shoulder, or he entrusts them to his minor son or daughter, and locked it up before them [in a way] that was not satisfactory, he is liable, because he did not guard [them] in the manner of guardians, [however] if he did guard [them] in the manner of guardians, he is exempt.",
+ "[If] one deposited coins with a money-changer, if they were tied up, he may not use them, therefore if they were lost, he is not responsible for them; if they were loose, he may use them, therefore if they were lost, he is responsible for them. [If they were deposited] with a private person, he may not use them whether tied up or loose, therefore if they were lost, he is not responsible for them. A storekeeper is like a private person; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A storekeeper is like a money-changer.",
+ "The one who misuses the deposited [money], Beit Shammai says: He should be lashed for [any] loss and [any] increase; Beit Hillel says: [He must pay the value from] the time it was taken. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must pay the value from] the time it was demanded. The one who considers misusing the deposit, the Beit Shamai says: He is liable; and the Beit Hillel says: He is not liable until he misuses it; as the Torah states, (Exodus 22:10): \"that he has not stretched forth his hand against the property belonging to his neighbor\"; How? If he bent down the cask, and took a quarter [of a log] from it, and it was broken, he must pay only for the quarter; if he lifted up the cask and took a quarter from it, and it was broken, he must pay the entire value [of the cask]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Gold acquires silver, but silver does not acquire gold. Copper acquires silver, but silver does not acquire copper. Defective coins acquire current ones, but current ones do not acquire defective. Uncoined metal acquires the coin; the coin does not acquire uncoined metal. Movable properties acquire the coin; the coin does not acquire movable properties. This is the general rule: All movable properties acquire each other.",
+ "How so? If he took produce from him but did not give him coins, he cannot retract. If he gave him money but did not take produce from him, he can retract. But they said: He who exacted payment from the Generation of the Flood and the Generation of the Dispersion will ultimately exact payment from he who does not stand by his word. Rabbi Shimon said: Whoever is holding the money has the upper hand.",
+ "Fraud is [at least] four silver from twenty four silver [which constitute a] sela, [equaling] one-sixth of the sale price. Until when is it permitted to retract? Up to the time it takes to show it to a merchant or to one's relative. Rabbi Tarfon taught in Lod: Fraud is eight silver per sela, [which is] one-third of the sale price, and the merchants of Lod were happy. He said to them, \"It is permitted to retract the entire day.\" They said to him, \"Let Rabbi Tarfon leave us in our place,\" and they resorted to the words of the Sages.",
+ "Both the purchaser and the seller have [the capacity to claim] fraud. Just as fraud applies to an ordinary person, so too fraud applies to a merchant. R. Yehudah says: Fraud does not apply to a merchant. The one who was defrauded - he has the upper hand. If he wants, he may say to him, \"Give me my money,\" or \"Give me the amount you defrauded me.\" ",
+ "How much can the sela lack [in weight] and it not be considered fraud? R. Meir says: Four issarin [at] one issar per dinar. R. Yehudah says: Four pundionot, [at] one pundion per dinar. R. Shimon says: Eight pundionot, [at] two pundionot per dinar.",
+ "Until when is it permitted to retract [when the coin is lacking weight]? In cities, until it can be shown to a money-changer. And in villages: until the eves of the Sabbaths. If [the one who originally gave the coin] recognizes [the underweight coin], even after twelve months he should accept it from him. But [if he refuses to do so, the one who received the coin] only has a [legally unenforceable] complaint against him. And one may use it for ma'aser sheni without concern, for [one who refuses to receive it] is nothing but a bad person.",
+ "Fraud is four silver, and a claim [must be at least] two silver, the affirmation of which [must be worth at least] the value of a perutah. There are five [legally operative ] perutot : The affirmation that it is the value of a perutah; and a woman is betrothed with the value of a perutah; and one who gets enjoyment worth the value of a perutah from sanctified property has misused consecrated property; and one who finds [something] worth a perutah is obligated to announce; and one who steals from his fellow [something] worth a perutah and swears about it - they pursue him, even as far as Media.",
+ "There are five [situations calling for a] one-fifth [penalty]: One who eats terumah,, terumat ma'aser, terumat ma'aser that may not have been tithed, challah, or first fruits, adds one-fifth. And one who redeems [the fruit of] his fourth-year planting or his ma'aser sheni adds a fifth. And one who redeems property that he has sanctified [to the Temple] adds one-fifth. And one who gets enjoyment worth the value of a perutah from sanctified property adds one-fifth. And one who steals [something] from his fellow worth the value of a perutah and [falsely] swears to him adds one-fifth.",
+ "These are the things to which fraud does not apply: Slaves, contracts, land, and property sanctified [to the Temple]. They are not subject to a double penalty nor a penalty of fourfold or fivefold. An unpaid guardian does not swear [concerning them], and a paid guardian does not pay [concerning them]. R. Shimon says: For [animals designated for] sacrifices that one is obligated to fulfill, one can [claim] fraud, but concerning those that one is not obligated to fulfill, one cannot [claim] fraud. Rabbi Yehudah says: Fraud does not apply to one who sells a Torah scroll, an animal, or a jewel. They said to him: They said only these [that are listed at the beginning of the Mishnah]!",
+ "Just as there is fraud regarding commerce, so too there is fraud regarding words. One should not say to [a merchant], \"How much is this object?\" if he does not want to buy. If someone was a penitent, one should not say to him, \"Remember your former actions.\" If someone is the child of converts, one should not say to him: \"Remember the deeds of your ancestors.\" As is written (Exodus 22:20): \"You shall neither deceive a stranger, nor oppress him.\"",
+ "Fruit [of one field] may not be mixed together with fruit [of another], even newly-harvested with newly-harvested, and needless to say newly-harvested with old. However, with regard to wine, they permitted to mix “hard” wine with “soft,” since this improves it. Yeast of one wine may not be mixed with that of another, but [the seller] may give the yeast [along with the wine]. One who mixed water with his wine may not sell it in a store unless he informs [the buyer], and not to a merchant even if he does inform him, for it will only [be used] for deception. In a place where they are accustomed to put water in wine, they may do so.",
+ "A merchant may acquire [grain] from five threshing floors and put the produce into one store-room, or from five wine-presses and put them into one cask, as long as he does not intend to mix [good with bad]. Rabbi Yehudah says: A storekeeper should not distribute parched grain or nuts to children, because he is accustoming them to come to him - but the Sages permit [this]. And he may not undercut the market price, but the Sages say: [let him be] remembered for good. One may not sift crushed beans - these are the words of Abba Shaul. But the Sages permit, though they agree that he should not sift [them only] at the opening of the store-room, since he would be creating an illusion. He should not beautify [his wares], neither humans, nor an animal, nor vessels."
+ ],
+ [
+ "Which act is usury and which act is profiteering? Which act is usury? The one who lends a sela for five dinarin, or two se'im of wheat for three, that transaction is forbidden because [the interest] bites. And what is profiteering? One who increases [his profit] with produce. How so? One bought wheat from him at a golden dinar for a kor [when] such was the market price, and then wheat rose to thirty [silver] dinarin. [If] he said to him, “Give me my wheat since I want to sell them and buy wine with them” and [the other] said to him, “Let your wheat be reckoned with me at thirty dinarin and you now have a claim on me for wine,\" although he [the creditor] has no wine. ",
+ "[If] one lends [money] to his fellow, he may not dwell in his courtyard for free or rent it from him at a reduced [rate], since this is usury. One may increase the rent but may not increase the purchase price. How so? If he rented him his courtyard, and said to him, \"If you pay me now [the cost] is ten sela'im per year, but if on a monthly basis, the rent is one sela per month,\" [this] is permitted. If he sold him his field and said to him, “If you pay me now, it is yours for one thousand zuz, but if [at the time of] threshing it will be twelve maneh,\" [this] is forbidden. ",
+ "If he sold him the field, and [the buyer] gave him a fraction of the cost, and [the seller] said to him, “Whenever you want, bring the [rest of] the money, and then take what is yours,\" [this] is forbidden. If he lent against [the borrower's] field and said to him, “If you do not pay me within three years, it will be mine,\" then it becomes his. This is what Baytos the son of Zonin used to by the Sages' word. ",
+ "One may not set up a shopkeeper [to sell one's goods and receive] half the profit, nor give him money to buy produce [to sell and receive] half the profit, unless he pays him his wage as a laborer. One may not offer his hens [to brood] for half [the profit], nor offer calves or foals [to be raised] for half [the profit], unless he pays him a wage for his labor and his food. But one may accept calves and foals for half [the proceeds], and rear them until they reach a third [of their growth], and a donkey, until it can carry [a burden.]",
+ "One may evaluate a cow or a donkey or anything that does work [enough to pay for what it] eats, and split [the profit]. In a place where they are accustomed to divide the offspring immediately, they divide; and in a place where they are accustomed to rear them, they must rear [them]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may evaluate a calf along with its mother, and a foal with its mother. One may offer increased [rent] on his field [in exchange for a loan from the landowner to improve the property] and not be concerned that this is usury. ",
+ "One may not [take on raising] sheep [that remain financially secure to their owner like] iron from a Jew, since this is usury. But one may [take on raising] sheep [that remain financially secure to their owner like] iron from non-Jews, and one may borrow from them, and one may lend them money with usury; and so too with a resident alien. A Jew may lend the money [that he borrowed from] a non-Jew with the consent of the non-Jew, but not so with the consent of a Jew.",
+ "One may not set a price for [a future shipment of] produce until its market-price has been set. Once the market-price has been set, one may make an agreement, for even if [the fruit seller] does not have [the produce], someone else will have it. If [the fruit seller] was the first to harvest, he may set any price with him over a heap of unrefined grain, or [for wine] over a basket of grapes, or [for oil] over a vat of olives, or [for pots] over the [clay] balls of the potter, or over lime from when [the limestone] is submerged in the kiln. One may set a price with him for [a pending shipment of] manure all the days of the year. Rabbi Yose says: One may not set a price over manure until [the seller] has manure in the dungheap, but the Sages permit [it]. And one may set a price [variable] up to the cheapest [possible] rate. Rabbi Yehudah says: Even though he did not set the price with him at the cheapest rate, he is able to say, “Give [it] to me at this [price] or give me back my money.”",
+ "One may lend his tenant-farmers wheat [in exchange] for wheat, for sowing but not for food, for Rabban Gamaliel used to lend his tenant-farmers wheat [in exchange] for wheat for sowing. If [it was] expensive and became cheap, or if it was cheap and became expensive, he would take from them at the cheaper rate [of the two], and not because this was the law, but because he wanted to hold himself to a stricter standard.",
+ "One should not say to his fellow, “Lend me a kor of wheat and I will repay you at the threshing time.\" But he may say to him, “Lend [it] to me until my son comes,” or “[Lend it to me] until I find my key.\" But Hillel forbids. And Hillel would say thus: A woman may not lend a loaf to her friend until she sets a price for it, lest wheat become more expensive [in the interim], and it turns out they have come to [transgress] usury.",
+ "One may say to his fellow, “Weed with me and I will weed with you,” [or] “Hoe with and I will hoe with you.” But one may not say to him, “Weed with me and I will hoe with you,” or, “Hoe with me and I will weed with you.\" All days of the dry season are the same [in value], and all days of the rainy season are the same [in value]. He shall not say to [his fellow], “Plow with me in the dry season and I will plow with you in the rainy season.” Rabban Gamaliel says: There is advance interest and subsequent interest. How so? If he set his sights on borrowing from another and sent him [a gift] and says, “This is in order that you will lend to me,” this is advance interest. If one borrowed from another and repaid it to him, and then sent him [a gift] and said, “This is for your money that was value-less [while] it was with me,” this is subsequent interest. Rabbi Shimon says: There is interest of words: one may not say to him, “Know that such-and-such a person has arrived from such-and-such place.”",
+ "And these are the people who transgress a negative commandment: the lender, the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses. And the Sages say: even the scribe. They transgress within the category of (Leviticus 25:37) “Do not give,\" and the category of (Leviticus 25:36) “Do not take from him,” and the category of (Exodus 22:24) “You shall not be to him as a creditor,\" and the category of “Nor shall you place upon him usury,” (ibid.) and the category of (Leviticus 19:14) “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind, and you will fear your God, I am Hashem.\""
+ ],
+ [
+ "One who hires [a craftsman to hire other] craftsmen and one intentionally misled the other, the one has no [claim] against the other aside from a [legally unenforceable] complaint. If one hired a donkey-driver and a wagon-driver to bring litter-bearers, or flute-players for a bride or for the dead, or laborers to take his flax out of the soaking pit, or anything whose time would pass, and they retracted: if it is a situation in which there is no one else, he may hire others or he may intentionally mislead them.",
+ "[If] one hires craftsmen and they retracted, they have the lower hand. If the employer retracted, he has the lower hand. Whoever changes [the conditions] has the lower hand. And whoever retracts has the lower hand.",
+ "One who hires a donkey to drive it on the mountain but drove it through the valley, or to drive it through the valley and he drove it on the mountain: even though one was ten miles and the other was ten miles, if it died, he is liable. One who hires a donkey and it went blind or was conscripted: [the owner] may say to him, “Behold, what is yours is before you.\" [But] if it died or [its leg was] broken, he is obligated to provide him a donkey. One who hires a donkey to drive it on the mountain and he drove it through a valley: if it slipped, [the renter] is exempt, but if it overheated, he is liable. If he rented it to drive through a valley and he drove it on the mountain: if it slipped, he is liable. And if it overheated, he is exempt. But if [it overheated] due to the ascent, he is liable.",
+ "[If] one hires a cow to plow on the mountain and he plows in the valley: if the plow breaks, he is exempt. In the valley and he plows on the mountain: if the plow breaks, he is liable. To thresh beans and he threshed grain, he is exempt. To thresh grain and he threshed beans, he is liable, because beans are slippery.",
+ "The one who hires a donkey to bring wheat and he brought barley on it, is liable. Grain, and he brought straw on it, he is liable, since the bulk is difficult to carry. A letekh of wheat, and it carried a letekh of barley, he is exempt. But if he increased the load, he is liable. How much must he increase the weight in order to become liable? Sumkhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: One se'ah for a camel, and three kabin for a donkey.",
+ "All craftsmen are considered paid guardians [concerning objects others have given them to work on]. But any that have said, “Take what is yours and bring the money,” are considered as unpaid guardians. “Guard for me and I will guard for you\" - he is a paid guardian. “Guard for me,” and the other said, “Place it before me” - he is an unpaid guardian.",
+ "If he loaned him with a pledge, he is a paid guardian [of the pledge]. Rabbi Yehudah says: If he loaned him money, he is an unpaid guardian, [but] if he loaned him produce, he is a paid guardian. Abba Shaul says: It is permitted for a person to rent out the pledge of a poor person in order to thereby reduce the debt, for he is like one who returns lost property.",
+ "[If] one was moving a barrel from place to place and broke it, whether he is a paid guardian or an unpaid guardian, he may swear. Rabbi Eliezer says: Either of them [is permitted to] swear, but I am surprised if either of them would be able to swear."
+ ],
+ [
+ "[If] one hires laborers, and then told them to begin work early and work late: in a place where they are accustomed to not begin work early and work late, he is not permitted to force them. In a place where they are accustomed to feed [workers], he should feed [them]; to provide sweets, he must supply. Everything goes according to local custom. It once happened that Rabbi Yochanan ben Matya said to his son, \"Go out and hire laborers for us .\" He went and committed to providing them with food. And when he came to his father, he said to him, \"My son, even if you made for them a meal as [befitting] Solomon in his time, you would not have fulfilled your obligation toward them, for they are children of Avraham, Yitzhak, and Ya'akov. Rather, before they begin labor, go and say to them, '… on the condition that the only [claim] you have on me is for bread and beans.'” Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is not necessary to say so, [since] everything goes according to local custom.",
+ "And these may eat, according to the Torah: The one who works with what is attached to the ground when the labor finished; and with what is detached from the ground [even] before its work is completed – if it is something that grows from the ground. And these do not eat: the one who works with what is attached to the ground at a time when the labor is not finished, and [works with] what is detached from the ground after its labor has been finished, and [one who works with] something that does not grow from the ground.",
+ "If one was working with his hands but not with his feet, [or] with his feet but not with his hands, or even with [only] his shoulders, this one may eat. Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: [he may not eat] unless he works with his hands and his feet.",
+ "If one was working with figs, he may not eat grapes; if with grapes, he may not eat figs; but he may restrain himself until he reaches the location of the best produce, and then eat. Concerning all of them, they only permitted so during the time of his labor. Because it is tantamount to returning lost property to its owner, they said: laborers may eat as they go from furrow to furrow, or as they return from the winepress, and a donkey while it is unloading.",
+ "A laborer may eat cucumbers even up to [the value] of a dinar, and dates even up to [the value] of a dinar. Rabbi Elazar ben Khisma says: A laborer may not eat more than the value of his wage. The Sages permit it, but [we] teach a person not be gluttonous, [for he would] thus be closing the door upon himself.",
+ "A person may stipulate for himself, and for his son or daughter who are adults, and for his adult male slave or adult female slave, and for his wife, because these have comprehension. But he may not stipulate for his son and daughter who are minors, or for his minor male slave or minor female slave or for his cattle, because these do not have comprehension.",
+ "The one who hires laborers to work among his fourth-year plantings, they may not eat from them. If he had not informed them, he should redeem and then let them eat. If his fig-cakes were split or his jugs were opened, they may not eat from them. If he had not informed them, he should tithe and then let them eat.",
+ "Those who guard produce may eat according to civic law but not according to the Torah. There are four types of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, one who collects a wage, and a renter. An unpaid guardian may swear in every case; and the borrower should pay restitution in every case; and one who collects a wage or a renter must swear concerning an injured [animal], concerning one that has been carried off, or concerning a dead [animal], and must pay restitution for loss or theft.",
+ "One wolf does not constitute an unavoidable occurrence. Two wolves do constitute an unavoidable occurrence. Rabbi Yehudah says: In a time when wolves are rampant, even if it is one wolf, it is an unavoidable occurrence. Two dogs do not constitute an unavoidable occurrence. Yadu'a the Babylonian says in the name of Rabbi Meir: From one direction they do not constitute an unavoidable occurrence, but from two directions they constitute an unavoidable occurrence. An [encounter with] bandits constitutes an unavoidable occurrence. A lion or a bear or a leopard or a panther or a serpent constitute an unavoidable occurrence. When? When they come of their own accord. But if he took them to a place of hordes of wild animals or bandits, they do not constitute an unavoidable occurrence.",
+ "If it died a natural death, this constitutes an unavoidable occurrence, but if he afflicted it and it died, it does not constitute an unavoidable occurrence. If it went up to the top of the cliffs and fell, this constitutes an unavoidable occurrence. If he brought it up to the top of the cliffs and it fell and died, it is not an unavoidable occurrence. An unpaid guardian may stipulate to be exempt from taking an oath, and a borrower to be exempt from paying restitution, and a paid guardian and a renter to be exempt from taking an oath or from paying restitution.",
+ "Anyone who stipulates concerning what is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void. And any condition that is preceded by action, his stipulation is void. And any stipulation that it would have been possible for him to fulfill at the end, but he stipulates it from its beginning, his stipulation is valid."
+ ],
+ [
+ "[If] one borrows a cow and borrows the owners with it; or hires its owners with it; [or if] one borrowed the owners or hired them, and subsequently borrowed the cow, and it died, he is exempt, as is written (Exodus 22:14): “If its owner was with it no restitution need be made.\" But if he borrowed the cow, and subsequently borrowed the owners or hired them, and it died, he is liable, as is written (Exodus 22:13): “Its owner not being with it, he must make restitution.\"",
+ "If one who borrowed a cow borrowed it for half a day and rented it for half a day, or borrowed it for one day and hired it for the next, or hired one and borrowed one, and it died, [if] the lender says: “The borrowed one died,” [or] “On the day when it was borrowed it died,” [or] “During the time when it was borrowed it died,” and the other one says: “I don’t know,\" he is liable. [If] the hirer says, “It was the hired one that died,” [or] “On the day when it was hired it died,” [or] “During the time when it was borrowed it died,” and the other says, “I do not know,\" he is exempt. [If] this one says, “It was [the] borrowed [one],” and this one says, “It was [the] hired [one],” the hirer should swear that it was the hired one that died. [If] this one says, “I do not know,” and this one says, “I do not know,” they should divide.",
+ "[If] one borrowed a cow, and [the lender] sent it to him in the hands of his son, in the hands of his [own] slave, in the hands of his [own] agent, or in the hands of [the borrower's] son, in the hands of his slave, in the hands of an agent, and it died, he is exempt. If the borrower said to him, “Send it to me in the hands of my son,” “In the hands of my slave,” “In the hands of my agent,” or “In the hands of your son,” “In the hands of your slave,” [or] “In the hands of your agent,\" or if the lender said to him, “Behold, I am sending it to you in the hands of my son,” “In the hands of my slave,” [or] “In the hands of my agent,” or “In the hands of your son,” “In the hands of your slave,” “In the hands of your agent,” and the borrower said to him, “Send [it],” and he sent it and it died, he is liable. And so too at the time when he returns it.",
+ "[If] one exchanged a cow for a donkey, and it gave birth, and so too [if] one sold his female slave and she gave birth: this one says, “[It was] before I sold [her],” and this one says, “After I bought [her],\" they should divide. He had two slaves, one large and one small, and so too with two fields, one large and one small: The buyer says, “I bought the large one,” and the other says, “I don’t know,” he obtains the large one. The seller says, “I sold the small one,” and the other says, “I do not know,” he [can] only [claim] the small one. This one says, “It was the large one,” and the other one says, “It was the small one,” the seller must swear that he sold the small one. This one says, “I do not know,” and the other one says, “I do not know,” they should divide.",
+ "The one who sells his olive trees for wood, and they produced less than a revi'it [quarter-log] per se'ah, these belong to the owner of the olives. If they gave a revi'it per se'ah: This one says, “My olives produced it,\" and this one says, “My land produced it,\" they should divide. If the river flooded his olives and placed them within the field of his fellow: This one says, “My olives produced it,\" and the other says, “My land produced it,\" they should divide. ",
+ "[If] one leased a house to his fellow in the rainy season, he cannot evict him from Sukkot until Pesach. In the summer, thirty days [before Sukkot]. And in large cities, whether during the rainy season or the summer, twelve months. And concerning stores, whether in towns or large cities, twelve months. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Stores of bakers or dyers, three years. ",
+ "[If] one leased a house to his fellow: the leaser is obligated [to provide] a door, a bolt, a lock, and anything which is the work of a craftsman. But as for anything which is not the work of a craftsman, the tenant must make it. The manure belongs to the owner of the house, and the tenant only [may only claim] what comes out from the oven and from the stove. ",
+ "[If] one leased a house to his fellow for a year, and the year was intercalated, the added [month] is for the tenant. If he leased it to him by month, and the year was intercalated, the added [month] is for the owner. It happened in Tzippori, that a person leased a bath-house from his fellow at twelve golden dinarin a year, a dinar per month, and the case came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and before Rabbi Yose, and they said: They should divide the intercalated month. ",
+ "[If] one leased a house to his fellow and it fell, he is obligated to restore a house for him. If it was small, he may not make it large; if it was large, he may not make it small. If it was a single unit, he may not make it two; if it was two he may not make it one. He may not reduce the windows nor increase them, without their mutual consent."
+ ],
+ [
+ "[If] one received a field from his fellow: In a place that was accustomed to cut [the crops], he should cut them; to uproot, he should uproot; to plow after it, he should plow - everything according to the local custom. Just as they divide the grain, so too they shall divide the straw and the stubble; just as they divide the wine, so too they shall divide the branches and the reeds. And both of them shall supply the reeds. ",
+ "[If] one received a field from his fellow and it was an irrigated field or a field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may not deduct from his lease. If he said to him, “Lease me this irrigated field,\" or \"[Lease me] this field with trees,\" and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may deduct from his lease.",
+ "[If] one received a field from his fellow and left it uncultivated, they evaluate how much it is fit to have yielded, and he pays him accordingly, for thus he writes to him: “If I leave it uncultivated, and do not work it, I will pay accordingly.\"",
+ "[If] one received a field from his fellow and he did not want to weed [it], and he said to him, “What does it matter to you, since I am paying you the lease?” they do not listen to him, because he can say to him, “Tomorrow you will leave it, and it will bring forth weeds fore me.”",
+ "[If] one received a field from his fellow and it did not [substantially] yield, if there was enough to make a heap, he is obligated to care for it. Rabbi Yehudah said: What is the limit of a heap? Rather, if there is enough to replace [the seed] that fell [into it].” ",
+ "[If] one received a field from his fellow and locusts ate it, or it was wind-struck, if it was a regional plague, he may subtract [accordingly] from his contract. If it was not a regional plague, he may not subtract from his contract. Rabbi Yehudah says: If he received it from him in exchange for money, in neither case may he subtract from him from his contract. ",
+ "[If] one received a field from his fellow in return for ten korim [volume measure, equals 30 se’ah] of wheat per year and it was wind-struck, he [still] pays him from [that field]. If the wheat was good, he may not say to him, “I will buy from the market.\" Rather he pays him from it. ",
+ "[If] one received a field from his fellow to sow barley, he may not sow wheat in it; [to sow] wheat, he may sow barley. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids. [To sow] grain, he may not sow beans; [to sow] beans, he may sow grain. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids. ",
+ "[If] one received a field from his fellow for a few years, he may not sow flax, and he does not have [a right to] sycamore beams. If he received it from him for for seven years, he may sow flax the first year, and he has [a right to] sycamore beams. ",
+ "[If] one received a field from his fellow for a seven year period for seven hundred zuz, the sabbatical year is included in the count. If he received it for seven years for seven hundred zuz, the sabbatical year is not included in the count. ",
+ "One hired for day-work can collect [wages] all [the next] night. One hired for night-work can collect all [the next] day. One hired for hourly work can collect all [that night] and all the [next] day. One hired for a week, hired for a month, hired by year, [or] hired for a seven year period: if he departed by day, he can collect [his wages] all that day; if he completed [it] by night, he can collect all that night and all day.",
+ "Whether [we are referring to] the hire of a person, the rental of a beast, or the rental of utensils, it is addressed by [the verse] (Deuteronomy 24:15): “On the same day you shall give him his hire,\" and it is addressed by [the verse] (Leviticus 19:13): “The wages of a hired servant shall not stay with you all night until the morning.” When is this [true]? In the event that he demanded it. If he did not demand it, [the renter] does not transgress it. If he directed him to a shopkeeper or to a moneychanger, he does not transgress it. The hired worker, at the time [when he could collect], may swear and receive [payment]. But if the time passed, he cannot swear and receive. If there are witnesses that he demanded it from him, behold, he can swear and receive. A resident alien is covered by, “In the same day you shall give him his hire,” but is not covered by, “The wages of a hired servant shall not stay with you all night until the morning.”",
+ "[If] one lends to his fellow, he may not extract a pledge except through the court, and he may not enter his house to take the pledge, as is written (Deuteronomy 24:11): “You shall stand outside.\" If he had two vessels [as a pledge], he may take one and leave one, and he may return the pillow at night and the plow during the day. And if [the borrower] died, he may not return it to his heirs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even to [the borrower] himself he [is only required to] return it up to thirty days, and after thirty days, he may sell them through the court. From a widow, whether she be poor or she be rich, one may not extracts written (Deuteronomy 24:17): “Do not take a widow’s garment as a pledge.\" One who takes millstones as a pledge transgresses a negative commandment, and he is liable for two vessels, as is written (Deuteronomy 24:6): “Do not take a mill or an upper millstone as a pledge.\" And they did not refer only to a mill and an upper millstone, but anything that is used to make food, as is written (ibid.): “For he is taking someone’s life as a pledge.\""
+ ],
+ [
+ "A house and upper story belonging to two [separate] individuals that collapsed, the two of them divide the wood, stones, and mortar. And they look [at] which stones were likely to be broken. If one of them recognized some of his stones, he may take them and they are counted toward his portion.",
+ "A house and upper story belonging to two [separate] individuals: [if the floor of] the upper story deteriorated, and the landlord does not wish to fix [it], the owner of the upper story goes down and lives below until he fixes the upper story for him. Rabbi Yose says: The one who is below gives the ceiling, and the upper one [gives] the pavement.",
+ "A house and upper story belongs to two [separate] individuals, and both collapsed: if the owner of the upper story told the landlord to build [the lower level], and he did not want to build, the owner of the upper story builds the house and lives within it, until he pays him his expenses. Rabbi Yehudah says: then this one was living in [the property] belonging to his fellow, [and] he needs to pay him rent! Rather, if the owner of the upper story builds the house, the upper story, and the ceiling, he may dwell in the house until he pays him his expenses.",
+ "And this is also the case with the house of an olive-press, which is built into the rock and there is a single garden above it and it collapses: the owner of the garden goes down and sows below, until [the owner of the olive-press] makes the arches of his olive-press. [If] a wall or a tree fell into the public domain and caused damage, he is exempt from paying. If they had given him a set amount of time to trim the tree or to tear down the wall, and they fell within the time, he is exempt. After that time, he is liable.",
+ "[If] one's wall was adjacent to his fellow's garden and it fell, and he said to him, \"Remove your stones,\" and he said to him: \"They have come to you,\" they do not listen to him. [If], once he has accepted it upon himself, he said to him: \"Here are your expenditures, and I will take what is mine,\" they do not listen to him. [If] one hires a worker to work with him on straw or stubble, and he said to him, \"Pay me my wages,\" and he said to him: \"Take what you made as your wage,\" they do not listen to him. [If,] once he has accepted it upon himself, he said to him, \"Here are your wages and I will take what is mine,\" they do not listen to him. [If] one removes his manure into the public domain, the one who removes it [from there] has removed [it], and one who has spread out the manure has spread it out. Clay may not be soaked in the public domain, nor may bricks be baked. But clay may be kneaded in the public domain, though bricks may not. [If] one builds from the public domain, the one who brings stones may bring, and the one who builds may build, and if he caused damage, he pays what he damaged. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He may even prepare his labor there thirty days before.",
+ "Two gardens are one on top of the other, with vegetables [growing] between them. Rabbi Meir says they pertain to the upper, and Rabbi Yehudah says they pertain to the lower owner. Rabbi Meir said, \"If the [owner of] the upper would want to take his soil, there would not be vegetables there.\" Rabbi Yehudah said, \"If the [owner of] the lower would want to fill his garden, there would be no vegetables there.\" Rabbi Meir said: \"Since each of them is able to hold the other one back, we identify from where the vegetable is sustained from.\" Rabbi Shimon said: \"Anything that the [owner of] the upper is able to reach out his hand and take, this is his, and the remainder belongs to [owner of] the lower.\""
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd6d5402a752644461ddf3d2663d9d1b043d4c83
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Metzia",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001042448/NLI",
+ "versionTitle": "Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de]",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 0.25,
+ "license": "Public Domain",
+ "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+ "actualLanguage": "de",
+ "languageFamilyName": "german",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא מציעא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "WENN ZWEI EIN GEWAND HALTEN UND DER EINE SAGT, ER HABE ES GEFUNDEN1 In einem Falle, in dem die gefundene Sache dem Finder gehört; davon weit. im 2. Abschnitte., UND DER ANDERE SAGT, ER HABE ES GEFUNDEN, ODER DER EINE SAGT, DAS GANZE GEHÖRE IHM, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, DAS GANZE GEHÖRE IHM, SO SCHWÖRE DER EINE, DASS ER DARAN NICHT WENIGER ALS DIE HÄLFTE HABE, UND DER ANDERE SCHWÖRE EBENFALLS, DASS ER DARAN NICHT WENIGER ALS DIE HÄLFTE HABE, UND SIE TEILEN. WENN DER EINE SAGT, DAS GANZE GEHÖRE IHM, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, DIE HÄLFTE GEHÖRE IHM, SO SCHWÖRE DER, WELCHER SAGT, DAS GANZE GEHÖRE IHM, DASS ER DARAN NICHT WENIGER ALS DREI VIERTEL HABE, UND DER, WELCHER SAGT, DIE HÄLFTE GEHÖRE IHM, SCHWÖRE, DASS ER DARAN NICHT WENIGER ALS EIN VIERTEL HABE, ALSDANN ERHÄLT DER EINE DREI VIERTEL UND DER ANDERE EIN VIERTEL2 So nach der weiter folgenden t.schen Auslegung; diese Konstruktion der Mišna scheint aber ganz falsch, viel richtiger wäre folgende: wenn zwei ein Gewand halten u. der eine sagt, er habe es gefunden, u. der andere sagt, er habe es gefunden, so muß, wenn der eine sagt, das ganze gehöre ihm, u. der andere sagt, das ganze gehöre ihm, der eine schwören usw. u. wenn der eine sagt, das ganze gehöre ihm, u. der andere sagt, die Hälfte gehöre ihm, der eine usw. Nach dieser Konstruktion, wonach der 1. Passus sich auf beide Fälle bezieht, sind die weiter folgenden diffizilen Erklärungen des T. hinfällig u. überflüssig..",
+ "WENN ZWEI AUF EINEM TIERE REITEN, ODER DER EINE DARAUF REITET UND DER ANDERE ES FÜHRT, UND DER EINE SAGT, DAS GANZE GEHÖRE IHM, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, DAS GANZE GEHÖRE IHM, SO SCHWÖRE DER EINE, DASS ER DARAN NICHT WENIGER ALS DIE HÄLFTE HABE, UND DER ANDERE SCHWÖRE EBENFALLS, DASS ER DARAN NICHT WENIGER ALS DIE HÄLFTE HABE, UND SIE TEILEN. WENN SIE ES EINANDER ZUGESTEHEN3 Daß sie gleichmäßig beteiligt sind.ODER ZEUGEN HABEN, SO TEILEN SIE OHNE SCHWUR.",
+ "WENN JEMAND AUF EINEM TIERE REITEND EINEN FUND SIEHT UND ZU SEINEM NÄCHSTEN SAGT: REICHE IHN MIR, UND DIESER IHN AUFHEBT UND SAGT: ICH HABE IHN SELBER ERWORBEN, SO HAT ER IHN ERWORBEN; WENN ER ABER, NACHDEM ER IHN IHM GEREICHT HAT, SAGT: ICH HABE IHN ZUERST ERWORBEN, SO HAT ER NICHTS GESAGT.",
+ "WENN JEMAND EINEN FUND SIEHT UND SICH AUF IHN WIRFT, UND EIN ANDERER KOMMT UND DEN FUND ERGREIFT, SO EIGNET IHN DER, DER IHN ERGREIFT. WENN JEMAND ANDERE HINTER EINEM FUNDE4 Einer herrenlosen Sache, die sich auf seinem Gebiete befindet.HERLAUFEN SIEHT, HINTER EINEM GEBROCHENEN REH, HINTER TAUBEN, DIE NICHT FLIEGEN5 Dinge, die, wenn andere sie nicht fortnehmen, in seinem Gebiete verbleiben.KÖNNEN, UND SAGT: MEIN FELD MÖGE SIE FÜR MICH ERWERBEN, SO HAT ES SIE FÜR IHN ERWORBEN; WENN ABER DAS REH WIE GEWÖHNLICH LÄUFT ODER DIE TAUBEN FLIEGEN, UND ER SAGT: MEIN FELD MÖGE SIE FÜR MICH ERWERBEN, SO HAT ER NICHTS GESAGT.",
+ "DER FUND SEINES MINDERJÄHRIGEN SOHNES UND SEINER MINDERJÄHRIGEN TOCHTER, DER FUND SEINES KENAA͑NITISCHEN SKLAVEN UND SEINER KENAA͑NITISCHEN MAGD, UND DER FUND SEINER FRAU GEHÖRT IHM. DER FUND SEINES ERWACHSENEN SOHNES UND SEINER ERWACHSENEN TOCHTER, DER FUND SEINES JISRAÉLITISCHEN SKLAVEN UND SEINER JISRAÉLITISCHEN MAGD, UND DER FUND SEINER GESCHIEDENEN FRAU, AUCH WENN SIE IHRE MORGENGABE NOCH NICHT ERHALTEN HAT, GEHÖRT IHNEN SELBER.",
+ "WER SCHULDSCHEINE FINDET, GEBE SIE, WENN SIE EINE GÜTERHAFTUNG6 Daß der Schuldner für die Schuld mit seinen immobilen Gütern Bürgschaft leistet; wenn er sie nachher verkauft, so kann sie der Gläubiger zur Deckung der Schuld den Käufern wegnehmen. ENTHALTEN, NICHT ZURÜCK, WEIL DAS GERICHT VON DIESEN7 Den verkauften Gütern.ZAHLUNG EINZIEHT, UND WENN SIE KEINE GÜTERHAFTUNG ENTHALTEN, SO GEBE ER SIE ZURÜCK, WEIL DAS GERICHT VON DIESEN8 Den verkauften Gütern.KEINE ZAHLUNG EINZIEHT – SO R. MEÍR. DIE WEISEN SAGEN, OB SO ODER SO GEBE ER SIE NICHT ZURÜCK, WEIL DAS GERICHT VON DIESEN ZAHLUNG EINZIEHT.",
+ "WER SCHEIDEBRIEFE, FREILASSUNGSBRIEFE9 Freigelassner Sklaven., TESTAMENTE, SCHENKUNGSURKUNDEN ODER QUITTUNGEN FINDET, GEBE SIE NICHT AB, DENN MAN NEHME AN, ER10 Der Aussteller, der sie auch verloren hat.HABE SIE SCHREIBEN LASSEN UND SICH ÜBERLEGT, SIE NICHT ZU GEBEN.",
+ "WER ABSCHÄTZUNGSURKUNDEN11 Eine Urkunde, daß das Gericht das Vermögen des Beklagten abgeschätzt u. es dem Kläger zugesprochen hat., ALIMENTATIONSURKUNDEN, ḤALIÇAURKUNDEN12 Eine Urkunde über den Vollzug der Ḥalica., WEIGERUNGSURKUNDEN13 Wird eine Minderjährige durch ihre Mutter oder durch ihren Bruder verheiratet, so kann sie später durch eine Weigerungserklärung die Ehe annullieren; die Weigerungserklärung wird durch das Gericht bescheinigt u. auf Grund dieser Bescheinigung darf sie eine andere Ehe eingehen., WAHLURKUNDEN14 Wird weiter erklärt.ODER IRGEND EINE ANDERE GERICHTLICHE URKUNDE FINDET, GEBE15 Bei diesen gerichtlichen Urkunden ist weder Überlegung, sie nicht auszuhändigen, noch Bezahlung zu berücksichtigen.SIE AB. WER SCHEINE IN EINEM BEUTEL ODER IN EINER TASCHE ODER EINE ROLLE ODER EIN BÜNDEL SCHEINE FINDET, GEBE SIE AB. WELCHES HEISST EIN BÜNDEL SCHEINE? DREI AN EINANDER GEBUNDEN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, SIND SIE VON EINEM SCHULDNER UND DREI GLÄUBIGERN, SO GEBE ER SIE DEM SCHULDNER, SIND SIE VON DREI SCHULDNERN UND EINEM GLÄUBIGER, SO GEBE ER SIE DEM GLÄUBIGER. WENN JEMAND UNTER SEINEN SCHEINEN EINEN SCHULDSCHEIN FINDET UND NICHT WEISS, WELCHES BEWENDEN16 Wer den Schein hei ihm deponiert hat u. ob er zum Teil oder vollständig bezahlt ist.ES MIT IHM HAT, SO LASSE ER IHN LIEGEN, BIS EILJAHU KOMMT; SIND DABEI17 Bei den Schuldscheinen, wonach der betreffende Schuldschein bezahlt sein muß.TILGUNGEN, SO RICHTE ER SICH NACH DEN TILGUNGEN18 Man nehme an, daß der Schuldner vergessen habe, die Quittung zu verlangen. Das W. סמפון wird im T. in der Bedeutung Quittung, od. richtiger Gegenschein, der die Rechtskraft der bezüglichen Urkunde aufhebt, gebraucht (oft auch abstrakt, eine Veranlassung zur Aufhebung eines Kaufes, wahrscheinl. σν’ μπτωμα, Begegnis, Unfall), u. wahrscheinl. im Gegensatz zur gewöhnlichen Quittung (שיבר), mit der Schuldurkunde verbunden u. im Besitze des Gläubigers.."
+ ],
+ [
+ "FOLGENDE SIND DIE FUINDE, DIE IHM1 Dem Finder. GEHÖREN, UND ANDERE WIEDER, DIE ER AUSRUFEN MUSS. FOLGENDE FUNDE GEHÖREN IHM. WENN JEMAND VERSTREUTE FRÜCHTE, VERSTREUTES GELD, GARBENBÜNDEL AUF ÖFFENTLICHEM GEBIETE, FEIGENKUCHEN, BÄCKERBROTE2 Die eine gleichmäßige Form haben., FISCHGEBLNDE, FLEISCHSTÜCKE, WOLLFLOCKEN, WIE SIE AUS IHREM LANDE3 Unmittelbar nach der Schur, noch nicht bearbeitet. KOMMEN, FLACHSBÜNDEL ODER PURPURSTREIFEN FINDET, SO GEHÖREN SIE IHM – SO R. MEÍR. R. JEHUDA SAGT, ALLES, WORAN AUSSERGEWÖHNLIGHES IST, MUSS ER AUSRUFEN; WENN ER BEISPIELSWEISE EINEN FEIGENKUCHEN FINDET, IN DEM EINE SCHERBE IST, ODER EINEN LAIB BROT, IN DEM GELD SICH BEFINDET. R. ŠIMO͑N B. ELEA͑ZAR SAGT, HANDELSWARE4 An der der Eigentümer kein besonderes Kennzeichen hat. BRAUCHT MAN NICHT AUSZURUFEN.",
+ "FOLGENDES MUSS ER AUSRUFEN. WENN JEMAND FRÜCHTE IN EINEM GEFÄSSE ODER EIN GEFÄSS ALLEIN, GELD IN EINEM BEUTEL ODER EINEN BEUTEL ALLEIN, HÄUFCHEN FRÜCHTE, HÄUFCHEN GELD, DREI MÜNZEN AUFEINANDER, GARBENBÜNDEL IN EINEM PRIVATEN GEBIETE, HAÜSBACKEBROTE, WOLLFLOCKEN, DIE VOM HANDWERKER KOMMEN, KRÜGE WEIN ODER KRÜGE ÖL FINDET, SO MUSS ER SIE AUSRUFEN.",
+ "WER HINTER EINER HOLZWAND ODER HINTER EINER MAUERWAND ODER AUF EINEM FELDSTEGE GEBUNDENE TAUBEN FINDET, DARF SIE NICHT BERÜHREN. WER EIN GERÄT AUF EINEM MISTHAUFEN FINDET, DARF ES, WENN ES VERDECKT IST, NICHT BERÜHREN; IST ES AUFGEDECKT, SO NEHME ER ES MIT UND RUFE ES AUS. WENN JEMAND ETWAS AUF EINEM STEINHAUFEN ODER IN EINER ALTEN WAND FINDET, SO GEHÖRT ES IHM; WENN IN EINER NEUEN WAND, SO GEHÖRT ES, WENN IN DER HÄLFTE NACH AUSSEN5 Wenn die Sache in der Wand steckt u. die ganze Dicke derselben nicht ausfüllt., IHM, UND WENN IN DER HÄLFTE NACH INNEN, DEM HAUSHERRN; IST DAS HAUS AN EINEN FREMDEN VERMIETET, SO GEHÖRT ES IHM6 Dem Finder., SELBST WENN MITTEN IM HAUSE.",
+ "WENN JEMAND ETWAS IN EINEM LADEN FINDET, SO GEHÖRT ES IHM; WENN ZWISCHEN DEM LADENTISCHE UND DEM KRÄMER, SO GEHÖRT ES DEM KRÄMER; WENN VOR EINEM WECHSLER, SO GEHÖRT ES IHM, WENN ZWISCHEN DER WECHSELBANK UND DEM WECHSLER, SO GEHÖRT ES DEM WECHSLER. WENN JEMAND VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN FRÜCHTE GEKAUFT, ODER JEMAND IHM FRÜCHTE GESCHICKT HAT, UND ER DARUNTER GELD FINDET, SO GEHÖRT ES IHM; IST ES EINGEBUNDEN, SO MUSS ER ES AUSRUFEN7 Wenn der Verlierende ein Kennzeichen angeben kann..",
+ "AUCH DAS GEWAND WAR UNTER DIESEN8 Den verlorenen Dingen, von welchen die Schrift spricht.EINBEGRIFFEN, UND NUR DESHALB WURDE ES BESONDERS9 Cf. Dt. 22,3.HERVORGEHOBEN, UM DAMIT ALLES ANDERE ZU VERGLEICHEN UND DICH ZU LEHREN: WIE DAS GEWAND SICH DADURCH AUSZEICHNET, DASS ES KENNZEICHEN HAT UND EINEN EINFORDERER10 Es ist kein Naturprodukt, sondern muß von Menschenhänden angefertigt sein, auch wird es vom Eigentümer stets benutzt, sodaß er wahrscheinlich ein Kennzeichen angeben kann.HAT, EBENSO MUSS MAN AUCH ALLES ANDERE AUSRUFEN, WAS KENNZEICHEN HAT UND EINEN EINFORDERER HAT11 Nicht aber, wenn es kein Kennzeichen hat u. der Eigentümer vermutlich sich davon losgesagt hat..",
+ "WIE LANGE MUSS ER ES AUSRUFEN LASSEN? BIS DIE NACHBARN ES ER FAHREN – SO R. MEÍR; R. JEHUDA SAGT, DREI FESTE12 An welchen die Wallfahrer in Jerušalem versammelt sind.UND SIEBEN TAGE NACH DEM LETZTEN FESTE; DREI TAGE MUSS ER13 Derjenige, der einen Verlust vermutet, falls er fern von Jerušalem wohnt.HEIMREISEN, DREI TAGE ZURÜCKKEHREN UND EINEN TAG AUSRUFEN HÖREN14 Wörtl. lassen; viell. daß er der Verlierende sei..",
+ "WENN EINER DIE VERLORENE SACHE NENNT, ABER DIE KENNZEICHEN NICHT ANGIBT, SO GEBE MAN SIE IHM NICHT. EINEM BETRÜGER ABER GEBE MAN SIE NICHT, AUCH WENN ER DIE KENNZEICHEN ANGIBT, DENN ES HEISST:15 Dt. 22,2.bis dein Bruder danach forscht, FORSCHE DEINEN BRÜDER AUS, OB ER EIN BETRÜGER IST ODER NICHT. ALLES, WAS ARBEITET UND FRISST, LASSE MAN16 Der den Fund aufbewahrt.ARBEITEN UND GEBE IHM ZU FRESSEN; WAS NICHT ARBEITET, ABER FRISST, VERKAUFE MAN, DENN ES HEISST:17 Dt. 22,2.du sollst es ihm zurückgeben, SIEH ZU, WIE DU ES IHM ZURÜCKGEBEN18 Dh. daß die Spesen den Wert nicht übersteigen.KANNST. WAS GESCHEHE MIT DEM GELDE? R. TRYPHON SAGT, MAN BENUTZE ES, DAHER IST MAN, WENN ES ABHANDEN KOMMT, HAFTBAR; R. A͑QIBA SAGT, MAN BENUTZE ES NICHT, DAHER IST MAN, WENN ES ABHANDEN KOMMT, NICHT HAFTBAR.",
+ "WER BÜCHER19 Die Bücher bestanden nicht aus zusammengehefteten Blättern, sondern aus Rollen, was für die Folge zu merken ist.FINDET, LESE DARIN20 Damit sie nicht stockig werden.EINMAL IN DREISSIG TAGEN, UND WENN ER NICHT ZU LESEN VERSTEHT, SO ROLLE ER SIE; ER DARF ABER DARIN NICHT ETWAS ZUM ERSTEN MALE21 Da sie dadurch zu sehr abgebraucht werden.LERNEN, AUCH DARF EIN ANDERER NICHT22 Weil jeder die Rolle zu sich zerren u. sie dadurch beschädigen könnte.MIT IHM LESEN. WER EIN GEWAND FINDET, STÄUBE ES EINMAL IN DREISSIG TAGEN AUS; ER BREITE ES AUS ZU DESSEN23 Um es zu lüften.NUTZEN, NICHT ABER, UM DAMIT ZU PRUNKEN. SILBERNE UND KUPFERNE GERÄTE BENUTZE ER ZU IHREM24 Damit sie nicht durch die Oxidation leiden.NUTZEN, NICHT ABER SO, DASS SIE ABGENUTZT WERDEN KÖNNEN. GOLDENE UND GLÄSERNE GERÄTE DARF ER, BIS ELIJAHU KOMMT, NICHT BERÜHREN25 Weil sie nicht oxidieren.. WER EINEN SACK, EIN BÜNDEL ODER SONST ETWAS, DAS ER NICHT AUFZUNEHMEN PFLEGT, FINDET, BRAUCHT ES NICHT AUFZUNEHMEN.",
+ "WELCHES HEISST VERLORENES? FINDET MAN EINEN ESEL ODER EINE KUH AUF DEM WEGE WEIDEN, SO IST DIES NICHT VERLORENES, WENN ABER EINEN ESEL MIT UMGEKEHRTEM GESCHIRRE ODER EINE KÜH ZWISCHEN DEN WEINBERGEN LAUFEN, SO IST DIES VERLORENES. WENN DER FINDER ES26 Das verlaufene Vieh.HEIMGEBRACHT HAT UND ES FORTGELAUFEN IST, WIEDERUM HEIMGEBRACHT HAT UND ES FORTGELAUFEN IST, SELBST VIER- ODER FÜNFMAL, SO MUSS ER ES WIEDERUM HEIMBRINGEN, DENN ES HEISST:27 Dt. 22,1.zurückbringen, zurückbringen sollst du. HAT ER DADURCH EINEN SELA͑ VERSÄUMNIS GEHABT, SO DARF ER NICHT DEN ERSATZ DES SELA͑ VERLANGEN, VIELMEHR HAT JENER IHM NUR DEN LOHN EINES (MÜSSIGEN) LOHNARBEITERS ZU ZAHLEN. IST DA EIN GERICHT28 Drei Personen, die ein Laiengericht bilden.VORHANDEN, SO BEDINGE ER SICH DIES29 Daß er dem Eigentümer die verlorene Sache nur unter der Bedingung zuführt, daß dieser ihm den dadurch erlittenen Schaden ersetze.VOR GERICHT AUS; IST DA KEIN GERICHT VORHANDEN, VOR DEM ER SICH DIES AUSBEDINGEN KÖNNTE, SO GEHT SEINES VOR.",
+ "FINDET MAN EIN VIEH IN EINEM STALLE, SO IST MAN DAZU30 Es dem Eigentümer zuzustellen.NICHT VERPFLICHTET, WENN AUF ÖFFENTLICHEM GEBIETE, SO IST MAN DAZU VERPFLICHTET. BEFINDET ES SICH AUF EINEM BEGRÄBNISPLATZE, SO DARF ER31 Wenn er Priester ist, dem die Verunreinigung an einer Leiche verboten ist. SICH DIESERHALB NICHT VERUNREINIGEN. WENN SEIN VATER ZU IHM SAGT, DASS ER SICH WOHL VERUNREINIGE, ODER WENN ER ZU IHM SAGT, DASS ER ES NICHT ZURÜCKBRINGE, SO GEHORCHE ER IHM NICHT32 Obgleich er dadurch das Gebot der Ehrung von Vater u. Mutter übertritt.. HAT ER ABGELADEN33 Wenn er einem, dessen Tier mit der Last auf dem Wege liegt, hierbei behilflich war.UND AUFGELADEN, ABGELADEN UND AUFGELADEN, SELBST VIER- ODER FÜNFMAL, SO IST ER DAZU NOCH IMMER VERPFLICHTET. DENN ES HEISST: 34 Ex. 23,5.ablasten, ablasten sollst du. WENN DER EIGENTÜMER FORTGEHT, SICH HINSETZT UND ZU IHM SAGT; DA DIR DIES GEBOTEN IST, SO LADE AB, WENN DU ABLADEN WILLST, SO IST ER DAVON FREI, DENN ES HEISST: mit ihm; IST JENER ABER ALT ODER KRANK, SO IST ER DAZU VERPFLICHTET. ES IST EIN GEBOT DER TORA ABLADEN UND NICHT AUFLADEN ZU HELFEN; R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT, AUCH AUFLADEN. R. JOSE DER GALILÄER SAGT, IST DAS TIER ÜBERMÄSSIG BELASTET, BRAUCHE MAN ES NICHT, DENN ES HEISST:35 Ex. 23,5.unter seiner Last, EINE LAST, DIE ES TRAGEN KANN.",
+ "VON SEINEM VERLORENEN UND DEM VERLORENEN SEINES VATERS GEHT SEIN VERLORENES36 Wenn er nur eines heimführen kann.VOR; VON SEINEM VERLORENEN UND DEM VERLORENEN SEINES LEHRERS GEHT SEINES VOR; VOM VERLORENEN SEINES VATERS UND DEM VERLORENEN SEINES LEHRERS GEHT DAS SEINES LEHRERS VOR, DENN SEIN VATER BRACHTE IHN IN DIESE WELT, WÄHREND SEIN LEHRER, DER IHN WEISHEIT LEHRTE, IHN IN DAS LEBEN DER ZUKÜNFTIGEN WELT BRINGT. IST ABER SEIN VATER EIN GELEHRTER, SO GEHT DAS SEINES VATERS VOR. TRAGEN SEIN VATER UND SEIN LEHRER EINE LAST, SO NEHME ER SIE ZUERST SEINEM LEHRER AB UND NACHHER SEINEM VATER. BEFINDEN SICH SEIN VATER UND SEIN LEHRER IM GEFÄNGNISSE, SO LÖSE ER ZUERST SEINEN LEHRER AUS UND NACHHER SEINEN VATER; IST ABER SEIN VATER EIN GELEHRTER, SO LÖSE ER ZUERST SEINEN VATER AUS UND NACHHER SEINEN LEHRER."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN VIEH ODER GERÄTE ZUR VERWAHRUNG GEGEBEN HAT UND SIE GESTOHLEN WORDEN ODER ABHANDEN GEKOMMEN SIND, UND DIESER BEZAHLT UND NICHT SCHWÖREN WILL, SIE SAGTEN NÄMLICH, EIN UNENTGELTLICHER HÜTER KÖNNE SCHWÖREN UND ERSATZFREI SEIN, SO MUSS DER DIEB, WENN ER GEFUNDEN WIRD, DAS DOPPELTE, UND WENN ER ES GESCHLACHTET ODER VERKAUFT HAT, DAS VLERODER FÜNFFACHE1 Cf. Ex. 237. AN DEN DEPOSITAR ZAHLEN; WENN ER ABER SCHWÖRT UND NICHT BEZAHLEN WILL, SO MUSS DER DIEB, WENN ER GEFUNDEN WIRD, DAS DOPPELTE, UND WENN ER ES GESCHLACHTET ODER VERKAUFT HAT, DAS VIERODER FÜNFFACHE AN DEN DEPOSITOR ZAHLEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EINE KUH GEMIETET UND SIE AN EINEN ANDEREN VERLIEHEN HAT, UND SIE AUF GEWÖHNLICHE WEISE VERENDET IST, SO SCHWÖRE DER MIETER, DASS SIE AUF GEWÖHNLICHE WEISE2 Dies ist ein Unfall, u. der Mieter ist ersatzfrei.VERENDET IST, UND DER ENTLEIHER3 Der für Unfälle haftbar ist.LEISTE ERSATZ AN DEN MIETER. R. JOSE SPRACH: WIESO KANN DIESER EIN GESCHÄFT MACHEN MIT DER KUH SEINES NÄCHSTEN!? DIE KUH4 Dh. der Ersatz für diese.MUSS VIELMEHR DEM EIGENTÜMER ZURÜCKGEGEBEN WERDEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND ZU ZWEIEN5 Die von ihm nichts fordern.SAGT: ICH HABE EINEM VON EUCH EINE MINE6 Die Mine hat 100 Zuz. GERAUBT, WEISS ABER NICHT, WEM VON EUCH, ODER: DER VATER DES EINEN VON EUCH HAT MIR EINE MINE ZUR VERWAHRUNG GEGEBEN, WEISS ABER NICHT, WESSEN VATER ES WAR, SO GEBE ER JEDEM VON IHNEN EINE MINE, DA ER SELBER ES ZUGIBT.",
+ "WENN ZWEI EINEM GELDBETRÄGE ZUR VERWAHRUNG GEGEBEN HABEN, EINER EINE MINE UND EINER ZWEIHUNDERT ZUZ, UND DER EINE SAGT, DIE ZWEIHUNDERT ZUZ GEHÖREN IHM, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, DIE ZWEIHUNDERT ZUZ GEHÖREN IHM, SO GEBE ER JEDEM VON IHNEN EINE MINE, UND DAS ÜBRIGE BLEIBE LIEGEN, BIS ELIJAHU KOMMT7 Der alle Zweifel entscheiden wird; wahrscheinl. jedoch, damit der Betrüger die Wahrheit eingestehe od. sie sich einigen.. R. JOSE SPRACH: WAS HAT DEMNACH DER BETRÜGER VERLOREN8 Er fühlt sich nicht veranlaßt, die Wahrheit einzugestehen.!? VIELMEHR BLEIBE ALLES LIEGEN, BIS ELIJAHU KOMMT.",
+ "EBENSO AUCH, WENN ES ZWEI GERÄTE SIND, EINES EINE MINE WERT UND EINES TAUSEND ZUZ WERT, UND DER EINE SAGT, DAS WERTVOLLERE GEHÖRE IHM, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, DAS WERTVOLLERE GEHÖRE IHM; ER GEBE DAS KLEINERE EINEM VON IHNEN, UND AUS DEM ERLÖSE9 Wie jed. aus der weiter folgenden Auslegung des T. hervorgeht, ist das größere zu zerbrechen, u. der andere erhält Bruchmetall im Werte des kleineren.DES GRÖSSEREN GEBE ER DEM ANDEREN DEN WERT DES KLEINEREN, UND DAS ÜBRIGE BLEIBE LIEGEN, BIS ELIJAHU KOMMT. R. JOSE SPRACH: WAS HAT DEMNACH DER BETRÜGER VERLOREN!? VIELMEHR BLEIBE ALLES LIEGEN, BIS ELIJAHU KOMMT.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN FRÜCHTE ZUR VERWAHRUNG GEGEBEN HAT, SO DARF SIE DIESER, SELBST WENN SIE ZUGRUNDE10 Durch Nagetiere od. Fäulnis.GEHEN, NICHT BERÜHREN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, ER VERKAUFE SIE VOR GERICHT, DENN DIES IST EBENSO, ALS WÜRDE ER DEM EIGENTÜMER VERLORENES WIEDERBRINGEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN FRÜGHTE ZUR VERWAHRUNG GEGEBEN HAT, SO ZIEHE ER IHM11 Bei der Rückgabe.DAS MANKO12 Was durch Verstreuung, Mäuse u. Fäulnis abgeht.AB; BEI WEIZEN UND REIS NEUN HALBE KAB13 1 Kor == 30 Seá, 1 S. == 6 Kab; somit 2½, bezw. 5, bezw. 10 Prozent.VOM KOR, BEI GERSTE UND HIRSE NEUN KAB VOM KOR, BEI SPELT UND LEINSAMEN DREI SEÁ14 1 Kor == 30 Seá, 1 S. == 6 Kab; somit 2½, bezw. 5, bezw. 10 Prozent.VOM KOR. ALLES NACH VERHÄLTNIS DES QUANTUMS, ALLES NACH VERHÄLTNIS DER ZEIT15 Dieses Quantum ist für jedes Jahr abzuziehen.. R. JOḤANAN B. NURI SPRACH: WAS KÜMMERN SICH DIE MÄUSE DARUM16 Um das Quantum der Früchte.; SIE FRESSEN VON VIEL UND VON WENIG; ER HAT IHM VIELMEHR DAS MANKO VON NUR EINEM KOR ABZUZIEHEN. R. JEHUDA SAGT, IST ES EIN GROSSES17 Der Begriff ‘großes’ Quantum wird weiter erklärt.QUANTUM, KÖNNE ER IHM KEIN MANKO ABZIEHEN, WEIL ES MEHR WIRD.",
+ "ER ZIEHE IHM AB18 Bei der Rückgabe des aufbewahrten Weines, falls er ihn mit seinem eigenen vermischt hat.EIN SECHSTEL VOM WEINE; R. JEHUDA SAGT, EIN FÜNFTEL. VOM ÖL ZIEHE ER IHM AB DREI LOG VON HUNDERT: ANDERTHALB LOG HEFE UND ANDERTHALB LOG ABSORPTION. IST DAS ÖL GEREINIGT, SO KANN ER IHM KEINE HEFE ABZIEHEN; SIND ES ALTE KRÜGE, SO KANN ER IHM KEINE ABSORPTION ABZIEHEN. R. JEHUDA SAGT, AUCH WENN JEMAND AN SEINEN NÄCHSTEN DAS GANZE JAHR HINDURCH GEREINIGTES ÖL VERKAUFT, MUSS DIESER ANDERTHALB LOG VON HUNDERT HEFE MITNEHMEN19 Er ziehe ihm 1½ Log ab, weil er nicht verpflichtet war, ihm gereinigtes zu liefern, falls dies nicht ausdrücklich vereinbart worden ist..",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EIN FASS ZUR VERWAHRUNG GEGEBEN UND IHM KEINEN PLATZ BESTIMMT HAT, UND DIESER ES UMGETRAGEN HAT UND ES ZERBROCHEN IST, SO IST ER, WENN ES UNTER SEINER HAND ZERBROCHEN IST, FALLS DIES ZU SEINEM EIGENEN NUTZEN GESCHAH, ERSATZPFLICHTIG, UND FALLS ES ZU DESSEN NUTZEN20 Wenn es auf der 2. Stelle besser aufgehoben ist.GESCHAH, ERSATZFREI, UND WENN ES, NACHDEM ER ES NIEDERGELEGT HAT, ZERBROCHEN IST, ERSATZFREI, EINERLEI OB ES ZU SEINEM EIGENEN NUTZEN ODER ZU DESSEN NUTZEN GESCHAH. WENN ER IHM ABER EINEN PLATZ BESTIMMT UND DIESER ES UMGETRAGEN HAT UND ES ZERBROCHEN IST, SO IST ER, EINERLEI OB UNTER SEINER HAND ODER NACHDEM ER ES NIEDERGELEGT HAT, WENN ES ZU SEINEM EIGENEN NUTZEN GESCHAH, ERSATZPFLICHTIG, UND WENN ZU DESSEN NUTZEN, ERSATZFREI.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN GELD ZUR VERWAHRUNG GEGEBEN UND DIESER ES EINGEBUNDEN UND ÜBER DEN RÜGKEN GEWORFEN ODER SEINEM MINDERJÄHRIGEN SOHNE ODER SEINER MINDERJÄHRIGEN TOCHTER GEGEBEN ODER UNGENÜGEND EINGESGHLOSSEN HAT, SO IST ER ERSATZPFLICHTIG, WEIL ER ES NICHT NACH ART DER HÜTER BEWACHT HAT; WENN ER ES ABER NACH ART DER HÜTER BEWACHT HAT, SO IST ER ERSATZFREI.",
+ "WENN JEMAND EINEM GELDWECHSLER GELD ZUR VERWAHRUNG GEGEBEN HAT, SO DARF DIESER ES, WENN ES EINGEBUNDEN IST, NICHT BENUTZEN, DAHER IST ER, WENN ES ABHANDEN GEKOMMEN IST, NICHT ERSATZPFLICHTIG, UND WENN ES LOSE IST, WOHL BENUTZEN, DAHER IST ER, WENN ES ABHANDEN GEKOMMEN IST, ERSATZPFLICHTIG; WENN ABER EINEM PRIVATMANNE, SO DARF DIESER ES, EINERLEI OB ES EINGEBUNDEN ODER LOSE IST, NICHT BENUTZEN, DAHER IST ER, WENN ES ABHANDEN GEKOMMEN IST, NICHT ERSATZPFLICHTIG. EIN KRÄMER GLEICHT EINEM PRIVATMANNE – SO R. MEÍR; R. JEHUDA SAGT, EIN KRÄMER GLEICHE EINEM GELDWECHSLER.",
+ "WER SICH AN EINEM DEPOSITUM VERGRIFFEN HAT, WIRD, WIE DIE SCHÜLE ŠAMMAJS SAGT, MIT ABNAHME UND ZUNAHME21 Wenn es, nachdem er sich daran vergriffen hat, an Wert abgenommen hat, so hat er den vollen Wert, den es bei der Veruntreuung hatte, zu ersetzen; hat es an Wert zugenommen, so hat er den höheren Wert, den es bei der Veräußerung, bezw. beim Verbrauche hatte, zu ersetzen.BESTRAFT; DIE SCHULE HILLELS SAGT, ER ERSETZE DEN WERT BEI DER ENTNAHME22 Dh. der Entwendung.; R. A͑QIBA SAGT, BEI DER FORDERUNG23 Er zahle den Wert, den es bei der Gerichtsverhandlung hat.. WER SICH AN EINEM DEPOSITUM ZU VERGREIFEN BEABSICHTIGT, IST, WIE DIE SCHULE ŠAMMAJS SAGT, HAFTBAR24 Auch für Unfälle, für die er als Hüter nicht haftbar ist, da es von dann ab sich in seinem Besitze befindet.; DIE SCHULE HILLELS SAGT, ER SEI ERST DANN HAFTBAR, WENN ER SICH DARAN VERGRIFFEN HAT, DENN ES HEISST:25 Ex. 22,7.ob er sich nicht am Eigentume seines Nächsten vergriffen hat. WENN ER DAS FASS GENEIGT UND DARAUS EIN VIERTELLOG ENTNOMMEN HAT UND ES ZERBROCHEN26 Später, nicht durch seine Schuld.IST, SO HAT ER NUR DAS VIERTELLOG27 Er hat das Faß dadurch nicht geeignet u. es befindet sich im Besitze des Eigentümers.ZU ERSETZEN; WENN ER ES ABER HOCHGEHOBEN UND DARAUS EIN VIERTELLOG ENTNOMMEN HAT UND ES ZERBROCHEN IST, SO HAT ER DAS GANZE ZU ERSETZEN28 Er hat es durch das Hochheben geeignet, auch ist bei der Vergreifung eine Teilentwendung erfolgt.."
+ ],
+ [
+ "DURCH DAS GOLD1 Unter Gold, Silber u. Kupfer sind Münzen aus diesen Metallen zu verstehen. WIRD DAS SILBER GEEIGNET2 Nach talmudischem Rechte wird ein Kaufgeschäft (emptio, venditio) perfekt, wenn der Käufer die Ware empfangen (durch das Ansichziehen, משיכה) hat, das Zahlungsmittel (Geld) ist dann Eigentum des Verkäufers, auch wenn er es noch nicht empfangen hat; dagegen ist der Empfang des Zahlungsmittels für beide Kontrahenten nicht bindend: jeder kann vom Kaufe zurücktreten. Wenn nun jemand Gold-, Silber- od. Kupfermünzen verkauft u. andere Münzen in Zahlung nimmt, so gilt stets das Silber als Zahlungsmittel, während die anderen Münzen Ware sind; der Grund wird weiter angegeben., DURCH DAS SILBER WIRD DAS GOLD NICHT GEEIGNET; DURCH DAS KUPFER WIRD DAS SILBER GEEIGNET, DURCH DAS SILBER WIRD DAS KUPFER NICHT GEEIGNET; DURCH DAS SCHLECHTE GELD3 Verrufenes, das nicht mehr als Zahlungsmittel, sondern nur als Ware genommen wird. WIRD DAS GUTE GEEIGNET, DURCH DAS GUTE WIRD DAS SCHLECHTE NICHT GEEIGNET; DURCH DAS ASEMON4 Ἄσημον ohne Abzeichen, Münzen, die nicht geprägt sind. WIRD DIE GEPRÄGTE MÜNZE GEEIGNET, DURCH DIE GEPRÄGTE MÜNZE WIRD DAS ASEMON NICHT GEEIGNET. DURCH BEWEGLICHE SACHEN WIRD DIE MÜNZE GEEIGNET, DURCH DIE MÜNZE WERDEN BEWEGLICHE SACHEN NICHT GEEIGNET. DIE REGEL HIERBEI IST: JEDE BEWEGLICHE SACHE WIRD DURCH DIE ANDERE GEEIGNET5 Sowohl in Form eines Kaufgeschäftes, wenn ein bestimmter Preis vereinbart worden ist u. der andere ihm eine andere Sache gibt, die ebenfalls auf ihren Geldwert geschätzt wird, als auch in Form eines Tauschgeschäftes (permutatio), wenn nur der Individualwert der beiden Sachen in Betracht gezogen wird: sobald ein Kontrahent die eine Sache erhalten hat, ist die Perfektion des Geschäftes eingetreten u. die andere Sache ist Eigentum des anderen Kontrahenten..",
+ "ZUM BEISPIEL: HAT DER KÄUFER DIE FRÜCHTE AN SICH GEZOGEN UND DEM VERKÄUFER DAS GELD NICHT GEGEBEN, SO KANN ER NICHT MEHR ZURÜCKTRETEN6 Weder der Käufer noch der Verkäufer., HAT ER IHM ABER DAS GELD GEGEBEN UND DIE FRÜCHTE NICHT AN SICH GEZOGEN, SO KANN ER ZURÜCKTRETEN. SIE SAGTEN ABER, WER DIE LEUTE VOM ZEITALTER DER SINTFLUT UND VOM ZEITALTER DER SPALTUNG7 Der Sprachen u. Volksstämme beim Turmbau zu Babel (Gen. Kap. 8). Das ה im W.e הפלגה ist Artikel u. פלגה rein biblisch, wonach Wörterbücher u. Ausgaben zu berichtigen sind. BESTRAFT HAT, WERDE DEREINST AUCH DEN BESTRAFEN, DER SEIN WORT NICHT HÄLT. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT, WER DAS GELD IN DER HAND HAT, HABE DIE OBERHAND8 Hat der Verkäufer das Geld zuerst empfangen, so kann er zurücktreten, der Käufer aber nicht..",
+ "DIE ÜBERVORTEILUNG9 Ist der Käufer um den hier genannten Betrag benachteiligt worden, so gilt dies im Sinne des Gesetzes (cf. Lev. 25,14) als Übervorteilung, u. der Verkäufer muß ihm den Betrag, um welchen er übervorteilt worden ist, herauszahlen; beträgt die Übervorteilung mehr als ein Sechstel, so kann der Kauf annulliert werden, u, wenn weniger, so gilt dies überhaupt nicht als Übervorteilung.BETRÄGT VIER SILBERLINGE BEI DEN VIERUNDZWANZIG SILBERLINGEN DES SELA͑, NÄMLICH EIN SECHSTEL DES WERTES10 Der gekauften Ware.. WIE LANGE DARF ER11 Der übervorteilte Käufer.ZURÜCKTRETEN? BIS ER DIE WARE EINEM KAUFMANNE ODER EINEM VERWANDTEN GEZEIGT HABEN KANN. R. TRYPHON LEHRTE IN LUD, DIE ÜBERVORTEILUNG BETRAGE ACHT SILBERLINGE BEI DEN VIERUNDZWANZIG SILBERLINGEN DES SELA͑, NÄMLICH EIN DRITTEL DES WERTES; DA FREUTEN SICH DIE KAUFLEUTE VON LUD. ALS ER ABER DARAUF LEHRTE, ER12 Der übervorteilte Käufer.DÜRFE DEN GANZEN TAG ZURÜCKTRETEN, SPRACHEN SIE ZU IHM: MAG ES R. TRYPHON BEI UNSEREM ALTEN BRAUCHE BELASSEN. HIERAUF KEHRTEN SIE ZUR ANSICHT DER WEISEN ZURÜCK.",
+ "SOWOHL FÜR DEN KÄUFER ALS AUCH FÜR DEN VERKÄUFER GIBT ES EINE ÜBERVORTEILUNG13 Dh. ein Gesetz die Übervorteilung betreffend., WIE ES EINE ÜBERVORTEILUNG FÜR EINEN LAIEN GIBT, SO GIBT ES EINE ÜBERVORTEILUNG AUCH FÜR EINEN KAUFMANN. R. JEHUDA SAGT, FÜR EINEN KAUFMANN GEBE ES KEINE ÜBERVORTEILUNG. WER ÜBERVORTEILT WORDEN IST, HAT DIE OBERHAND, ER KANN NACH BELIEBEN ENTWEDER SEIN GELD ZURÜCKVERLANGEN, ODER DEN BETRAG, UM DEN ER ÜBERVORTEILT WORDEN IST.",
+ "WIEVIEL DARF VON EINEM SELA͑ FEHLEN14 Als zulässiges Passierremedium., OHNE ALS ÜBERVORTEILUNG ZU GELTEN15 Wenn man ihn als vollwertig ausgibt.? R. MEÍR SAGT: VIER16 Dh. bis vier; die hier genannten Beträge gelten schon als Übervorteilung.ASSAR17 1 Denar (Silber) == 12 Pondion, 1 P. == 2 Assar., EIN ASSAR AUF DEN DENAR; R. JEHUDA SAGT: VIER PONDION, EIN PONDION AUF DEN DENAR; R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT: ACHT PONDION, ZWEI PONDION AUF DEN DENAR.",
+ "BIS WIE LANGE DARF MAN IHN18 Einen Sela͑, der um den hier genannten Betrag reduziert ist.ZURÜCKGEBEN? IN STÄDTEN, BIS MAN IHN EINEM WECHSLER GEZEIGT HABEN KANN, IN DÖRFERN, BIS ZUM VORABENDE DES ŠABBATHS. ERKENNT ER19 Der ihn verausgabt hat.IHN, SO NEHME ER IHN SELBST NACH ZWÖLF MONATEN ZURÜCK; DOCH KANN JENER NUR GROLL GEGEN IHN HEGEN. MAN DARF EINEN SOLCHEN OHNE BEDENKEN FÜR DEN ZWEITEN ZEHNTEN20 Wenn man ihn auslöst.GEBEN, DENN DIES21 Die Zurückweisung einer Münze wegen eines unerheblichen Remediums.VERRÄT NUR EINEN SCHLECHTEN CHARAKTER.",
+ "DIE ÜBERVORTEILUNG22 Wenn die Ware einen Sela͑ wert ist; vgl. S. 603 Anm. 165.BETRÄGT VIER SILBERLINGE; DIE FORDERUNG23 Wegen welcher das Gericht bei einem Teilgeständnisse dem Beklagten einen Eid zuschiebt. MUSS ZWEI SILBERLINGE UND DAS ZUGESTANDENE EINE PERUṬA BETRAGEN. IN FÜNF FÄLLEN IST DER WERT EINER PERUṬA ERFORDERLICH; BEIM ZUGESTANDENEN IST DER WERT EINER PERUṬA ERFORDERLICH; EINE FRAU WIRD MIT DEM WERTE EINER PERUṬA24 Den ein Mann ihr zu diesem Behufe gibt.ANGETRAUT; WER HEILIGES IM WERTE EINER PERUṬA GENOSSEN HAT HAT EINE VERUNTREUUNG BEGANGEN; WER ETWAS IM WERTE EINER PERUṬA FINDET, MUSS ES AUSRUFEN; UND WER VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN ETWAS IM WERTE EINER PERUṬA GERAUBT UND ES ABGESCHWOREN HAT, MUSS ES IHM SELBST NACH MEDIEN ZURÜCKBRINGEN.",
+ "ES GIBT FÜNF FÜNFTEL, UND ZWAR: WER HEBE, ZEHNTHEBE25 Die der Lévite vom an ihn entrichteten Zehnten an den Priester zu entrichten hat., ZEHNTHEBE VOM DEMAJ26 Früchte, die von Leuten, die hinsichtlich der Entrichtung der priesterlichen Abgaben unglaubwürdig sind, herrühren; solche müssen nach rabbanitischer Bestimmung zum 2. Male verzehntet werden., TEIGHEBE27 Cf.. Num. 20,21.ODER ERSTLINGE GEGESSEN HAT, MUSS EIN FÜNFTEL ZUFÜGEN; WER VIERJAHRSFRÜCHTE28 Die ausgelöst werden müssen; cf. Lev. 19,23ff.ODER SEINEN ZWEITEN ZEHNTEN AUSLÖST, MUSS DAS FÜNFTEL ZUFÜGEN; WER SEIN HEILIGES AUSLÖST, MUSS EIN FÜNFTEL ZUFÜGEN; WER VOM HEILIGEN IM WERTE EINER PERUṬA GENOSSEN HAT, MUSS EIN FÜNFTEL ZUFÜGEN; WER SEINEM NÄCHSTEN ETWAS IM WERTE EINER PERUṬA GERAUBT UND ES IHM ABGESCHWOREN HAT, MUSS EIN FÜNFTEL ZUFÜGEN.",
+ "BEI FOLGENDEN DINGEN GIBT ES KEINE ÜBERVORTEILUNG: BEI SKLAVEN, SCHULDSCHEINEN, GRUNDSTÜCKEN UND HEILIGEM29 Wenn der Schatzmeister Heiligengut verkauft, od. wenn jemand ein als Opfer geweihtes Tier, das ein Gebrechen bekommen hat, verkauft.. WEGEN DIESER IST WEDER DAS DOPPELTE30 Wenn jemand sie gestohlen hat.NOCH DAS VIER- ODER FÜNFFACHE31 Wenn der Dieb das gestohlene Tier geschlachtet od. verkauft hat.ZU ZAHLEN; FERNER BRAUCHT WEGEN DIESER DER UNENTGELTLICHE HÜTER NICHT ZU SCHWÖREN UND DER LOHNHÜTER SIE NICHT ZU BEZAHLEN. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT, BEI HEILIGEM, FÜR DAS DER EIGENTÜMER HAFTBAR32 Wenn jemand ‘ein Opfer’ gelobt u. ein Vieh zu diesem Behufe reserviert hat; kommt es abhanden od. verendet es, so muß er ein anderes darbringen.IST, GEBE ES EINE ÜBERVORTEILUNG, UND FÜR DAS ER NICHT HAFTBAR33 Wenn er ein bestimmtes Vieh als Opfer geweiht hat; kommt es abhanden, so braucht er kein anderes darzubringen.IST, GEBE ES KEINE ÜBERVORTEILUNG. R. JEHUDA SAGT, AUCH WENN JEMAND EINE TORAROLLE, EIN VIEH ODER EINE PERLE VERKAUFT, GEBE ES HIERBEI KEINE ÜBERVORTEILUNG. MAN ERWIDERTE IHM: SIE LEHRTEN DIES NUR VON JENEN.",
+ "WIE ES EINE ÜBERVORTEILUNG34 Im Hebräischen wird für beide Begriffe dasselbe Wort (אונאה) gebraucht.BEI KAUF UND VERKAUF GIBT, SO GIBT ES AUCH EINE KRÄNKUNG35 Im Hebräischen wird für beide Begriffe dasselbe Wort (אונאה) gebraucht.DURCH WORTE. MAN DARF NICHT NACH DEM PREISE EINER SACHE FRAGEN, WENN MAN SIE NICHT ZU KAUFEN BEABSICHTIGT. HAT JEMAND BUSSE GETAN, SO DARF MAN NICHT ZU IHM SAGEN: DENKE AN DEINE FRÜHEREN TATEN. STAMMT JEMAND VON PROSELYTEN, SO SAGE MAN NICHT ZU IHM: DENKE AN DIE TATEN DEINER VORFAHREN, DENN ES HEISST:36 Ex. 22,20.einen Fremdling37 Mit גר (in der Bibel Fremdling) wird in der t.schen Literatur der Proselyt bezeichnet.sollst du nicht kränken und nicht bedrücken.",
+ "MAN DARF NICHT FRÜCHTE UNTER FRÜCHTE38 Hinsichtlich welcher ein Verkauf bereits abgeschlossen worden ist.MISCHEN, AUCH NICHT NEUE UNTER NEUE, GESCHWEIGE DENN NEUE UNTER ALTE39 Altes, getrocknetes Getreide ist ergiebiger.. IN WIRKLICHKEIT SAGTEN SIE ABER, DASS MAN BEIM WEINE ERLAUBT HAT, SCHWEREN MIT LEICHTEM40 Den man zu liefern hat.ZU MISCHEN, WEIL MAN IHN DADURCH BESSER MACHT. MAN DARF DIE WEINHEFE NICHT UNTER DEN WEIN MISCHEN, WOHL ABER DARF ER IHM41 Der Verkäufer dem Käufer.SEINE HEFE42 Der zum gekauften Weine gehört.MITGEBEN. WENN EINEM WASSER IN SEINEN WEIN BEIGEMISCHT WORDEN IST, SO DARF ER IHN NICHT IM LADEN AUSHÖKERN, ES SEI DENN, DASS ER ES DEM KÄUFER MITTEILT; EINEM HÄNDLER VERKAUFE ER IHN NICHT, SELBST WENN ER ES IHM MITTEILT, DENN DIESER KAUFT IHN NUR, UM DAMIT ZU BETRÜGEN. IN ORTEN, WO ES ÜBLICH IST, DEM WEINE WASSER BEIZUMISCHEN, DARF MAN43 Dies ist kein Betrug, da der Verkäufer es weiß.DIES.",
+ "EIN HÄNDLER DARF AUS VERSCHIEDENEN TENNEN KAUFEN UND IN EINEN SPEICHER BRINGEN, AUS FÜNF KELTERN, UND IN EIN FASS GIESSEN, NUR DARF ER DIE MISGHUNG NICHT BEABSICHTIGEN44 Bekannt machen, daß er gute Früchte verkaufe u. schlechte beimischen.. R. JEHUDA SAGT, EIN KRÄMER DARF NICHT ROSTÄHREN UND NÜSSE AN DIE KINDER VERTEILEN, WEIL ER SIE DADURCH ZU IHM ZU KOMMEN ANLOCKT; DIE WEISEN ERLAUBEN DIES. MAN DARF NICHT DEN PREIS VERDERBEN45 Unter dem Marktpreise verkaufen.; DIE WEISEN SAGEN, ER SEI ZUM GUTEN GEDACHT. MAN DARF KEINE GRAUPEN VERLESEN46 Dies gilt als unlauterer Wettbewerb.– SO ABBA ŠAÚL; DIE WEISEN ERLAUBEN DIES. SIE PFLICHTEN ABER BEI, DASS MAN NICHT DEN HAUFEN NUR VON OBENAUF VERLESEN DARF, WEIL MAN DADURCH NUR DAS AUGE BETRÜGT. MAN DARF WEDER MENSCHEN NOCH TIERE NOCH GERÄTE AUFPUTZEN47 Vor dem Verkaufe, um den Käufer zu täuschen.."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WAS HEISST ZINS UND WAS HEISST WUCHER1 Bei Darlehensgeschäften; cf. Lev. 25,36,37.? WENN JEMAND EINEN SELA͑2 1 Sela͑ == 4 Denare. GEGEN FÜNF DENARE ODER ZWEI SEA͑ WEIZEN GEGEN DREI VERBORGT; DIES IST VERBOTEN, WEIL ER ZINS NIMMT. WUCHER DAGEGEN HEISST ES, WENN JEMAND AN FRÜCHTEN EINEN GEWINN ERZIELT; ZUM BEISPIEL: WENN JEMAND VON EINEM WEIZEN ZUM PREISE VON EINEM GOLDDENAR FÜR DAS KOR GERAUFT HAT, UND DIES DER MARKTPREIS WAR, UND ALS SPÄTEER DER WEIZEN AUF DREISSIG SILBERDENAR3 1 Golddenar == 25 Silberdenare. GESTIEGEN WAR, ER ZU IHM SAGT: GIB MIR MEINEN WEIZEN, DENN ICH WILL IHN VERKAUFEN UND DAFÜR WEIN KAUFEN, UND DIESER IHM ERWIDERT: DEIN WEIZEN SEI DIR BEI MIR FÜR DREISSIG ANGERECHNET UND DU HAST NUN BEI MIR DAFÜR WEIN, WÄHREND ER GAR KEINEN WEIN HAT.",
+ "WER SEINEM NÄCHSTEN GELD GEBORGT HAT, DARF NICHT UMSONST IN SEINEM HOFE WOHNEN, AUCH NICHT UNTER PREIS MIETEN, WEIL DIES WUCHER IST. MAN DARF AUF DEN MLETPREIS4 Für die Stundung.AUFSCHLAGEN, NICHT ABER AUF DEN KAUFPREIS; ZUM BEISPIEL: WENN JEMAND EINEN HOF VERMIETET UND ZUM MIETER SAGT: WENN DU MIR DIE MIETE SOFORT BEZAHLST, SO HAST DU IHN FÜR ZEHN SELA͑ JÄHRLICH, WENN ABER MONATLICH, SO HAST DU MIR EINEN SELA͑ FÜR DEN MONAT ZU ZAHLEN, SO IST DIES ERLAUBT; WENN ABER JEMAND EIN FELD VERKAUFT UND ZUM KÄUFER SAGT: WENN DU ES MIR SOFORT BEZAHLST, SO HAST DU ES FÜR TAUSEND ZUZ, WENN ABER ZUR ERNTEZEIT, FÜR ZWÖLF MINEN, SO IST DIES VERBOTEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEIN FELD VERKAUFT UND DER KÄUFER IHM EINEN TEIL DES GELDES GIBT, UND JENER ZU IHM SAGT : SOBALD DU WILLST, BRINGE MIR DAS GELD UND NIMM DEINES, SO IST DIES VERBOTEN5 Wenn der Verkäufer die Früchte genießt, so erhält er eine Belohnung für die Stundung, wenn der Käufer die Früchte genießt, so muß mit dem Falle gerechnet werden, daß er den Rest nicht zahlt u. der Kauf rückgängig gemacht wird, in welchem Falle die Anzahlung ein Darlehen ist, wofür er die Früchte genießt; auf jeden Fall wird das Wuchergesetz übertreten.. WENN JEMAND EINEM GELD AUF SEIN FELD BORGT, UND ZU IHM SAGT: WENN DU ES MIR VON JETZT AB BIS NACH DREI JAHREN NIGHT BEZAHLST, GEHÖRE ES MIR, SO GEHÖRT ES IHM. SO TAT BOËTHOS, DER SOHN ZONINS, MIT ZUSTIMMUNG DER WEISEN.",
+ "MAN DARF NICHT EINEN KRÄMER AUF HALBEN GEWINN6 Ihm Waren zu einem festen Preise vorschießen u. mit ihm den erzielten Gewinn teilen; dies ist nach einer weiter (Fol. 104b) folgenden Ausführung Wucher.EINSETZEN; FERNER DARF MAN NICHT EINEM HÄNDLER GELD ZUM ANKAUFE VON FRÜCHTEN AUF HALBEN GEWINN7 Da der Händler allein die Mühewaltung des Verkaufes hat u. der Geldgeber sich durch den vorgeschossenen Betrag davon befreit, so ist dies Wucher.GEBEN, ES SEI DENN, MAN ZAHLT IHM GLEICH EINEM LOHNARBEITER EINEN LOHN. MAN DARF NICHT HÜHNER AUF HALBEN GEWINN BRÜTEN8 Einer liefert die Eier, für die er einen bestimmten Preis ansetzt, u. der andere läßt sie ausbrüten u. zieht die Küchlein groß; der Überschuß wird dann geteilt. Der eingeschätzte Betrag gilt als Darlehen u. die Mühewaltung des einen für den anderen als Wucher.LASSEN, AUCH NICHT KÄLBER UND FÜLLEN AUF HALBEN GEWINN SCHÄTZEN9 Die übergebenen Tiere werden dem Züchter in festem Gelde angerechnet u. der erzielte Gewinn geteilt., ES SEI DENN, MAN BEZAHLT IHM10 Auf den Anteil des anderen; beide tragen Spesen u. Mühewaltung, u. Wucher ist nicht mehr vorhanden.MÜHEWALTUNG UND FÜTTERUNG. MAN DARF ABER KÄLBER UND FÜLLEN AUF HALBEN GEWINN ZUR ZÜCHTUNG ÜBERNEHMEN11 Ohne sie in Geld einzuschätzen; das Risiko trägt einzig u. allein der Übergebende, somit ist dies kein Leihgeschäft mehr, womit auch das Moment des Wuchers fortfällt., BIS SIE EIN DRITTEL HERANWACHSEN12 Das Alter der Reife erreicht haben., ODER ESEL, BIS SIE LASTFÄHIG SIND.",
+ "MAN DARF EINE KUH, EINEN ESEL UND ALLES, WAS FRISST UND ARBEIT VERRICHTET, AUF TEILUNG SCHÄTZEN13 Zur Züchtung auf halben Gewinn geben u. den Wert bei der Übergabe in festem Gelde einschätzen.. IN ORTEN, WO ES ÜBLICH IST, DIE JUNGEN ZU TEILEN14 Nachdem sie das erforderliche Alter (ob. Fol. 69a) erreicht haben., TEILE ER SIE, UND WO ES ÜBLICH IST, SIE GROSSZUZIEHEN, ZIEHE ER SIE GROSS. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, MAN SCHÄTZE EIN KALB MIT SEINER MUTTER15 Für das Kalb, bezw. Füllen braucht kein besonderer Lohn gezahlt zu werden.UND EIN FÜLLEN MIT SEINER MUTTER; FERNER DARF MAN AUF SEIN FELD VORSCHIESSEN16 Wenn jemand ein Feld vermietet hat, so darf er dem Mieter Geld zur Melioration vorschießen u. eine höhere Pacht nehmen; dies ist kein Wucher, da das Feld mehr wert ist., OHNE WUCHER ZU BEFÜRCHTEN.",
+ "MAN DARF NICHT EISERNES VLEH17 Wenn dem Pächter das Vieh in Geld eingeschätzt wird u. er nach Ablauf der Pachtzeit jedes fehlende Stück ersetzen muß.VON JISRAÉLITEN PACHTEN, WEIL DIES WUCHER18 Da er das Risiko trägt.IST, WOHL ABER DARF MAN EISERNES VIEH VON NICHTJUDEN PACHTEN. MAN DARF VON IHNEN AUF WUCHER19 Unter Wucher (od. Zins) ist nicht nur das übermäßige, nach dem Rechte verbotene, zu verstehen, sondern jede Vergütung für das Leihen.LEIHEN UND AN SIE VERLEIHEN; DASSELBE GILT AUCH VON EINEM BEISASSPROSELYTEN. EIN JISRAÉLIT DARF GELD EINES NICHTJUDEN MIT WISSEN DES NICHTJUDEN, NICHT ABER MIT WISSEN EINES JISRAÉLITEN VERLEIHEN20 Nähere Erklärung folgt weiter..",
+ "MAN DARF NICHT EIN LIEFERUNGSGESCHÄFT AUF FRÜCHTE21 Und das Geld im voraus bezahlen.ABSCHLIESSEN, BEVOR DER MARKTPREIS FESTGESETZT WORDEN IST22 Denn wenn die Früchte später im Preise steigen, so erhält der Käufer mehr, also Wucher.; IST DER MARKTPREIS FESTGESETZT WORDEN, SO DARF MAN ABSCHLIESSEN, DENN WENN DIESER KEINE HAT, SO HAT SIE23 Der Verkäufer kann zu diesem Preise überall Früchte erhalten.EIN ANDERER. IST ER24 Der Lieferant.DER ERSTE SCHNITTER, SO DARF MAN MIT IHM ÜBER DIE TENNE25 Zu jedem beliebigen Preise, auch wenn der Marktpreis noch nicht bekannt ist; das Getreide geht, obgleich es noch gedroschen werden muß, sofort in den Besitz des Käufers über.ABSCHLIESSEN; EBENSO ÜBER DIE BÜTTE WEINTRAUBEN26 Obgleich sie noch nicht gepreßt sind., ÜBER DEN KORB MIT OLIVEN27 Obgleich sie noch nicht gepreßt sind., ÜBER TONKUGELN28 Man darf ein Verkaufsgeschäft abschließen u. im voraus bezahlen, obgleich die Töpfe noch gar nicht angefertigt sind, da die Anfertigung in seiner Hand liegt.DER TÖPFER, UND ÜBER KALK, WENN ER IN DEN OFEN GESENKT29 Zum Brennen, obgleich der Marktpreis für Kalk noch unbekannt, ist.IST. MAN DARF ÜBER DIE LIEFERUNG VON DÜNGER WÄHREND DES GANZEN JAHRES30 Auch in einer Jahreszeit, wo dieser nicht zu erhalten ist.ABSCHLIESSEN; R. JOSE SAGT, MAN DÜRFE ÜBER DIE LIEFERUNG VON DÜNGER NUR DANN ABSCHLIESSEN, WENN ER31 Der Lieferant.DÜNGER AUF DEM MISTHAUFEN HAT; DIE WEISEN ABER ERLAUBEN32 Auch wenn er keinen vorrätig hat.DIES. MAN DARF AUF DEN BILLIGEN PREIS33 Wörtl. zum hohen Preise (der Preis richtete sich bei Früchten nach der Höhe des Quantums für eine bestimmte Münze); dh. wenn der Preis fallen sollte, so erfolge die Lieferung zu diesem.ABSCHLIESSEN. R. JEHUDA SAGT, AUCH WENN ER MIT IHM NICHT ZUM BILLIGEN PREISE ABGESCHLOSSEN HAT, KÖNNE ER ZU IHM SAGEN: GIB MIR UM DIESEN ODER GIB MIR MEIN GELD ZURÜCK34 Da die Früchte bei der Zahlung nicht geliefert worden sind, so ist der Marktpreis zur Zeit der Lieferung maßgebend..",
+ "MAN DARF SEINEN QUOTEINPÄCHTERN WEIZEN GEGEN WEIZEN ZUR AUSSAAT BORGEN, NICHT ABER ZUM VERZEHREN35 Hier wird vom Borgen eines bestimmten Maßes Getreide gegen ein bestimmtes Maß gesprochen; im 2. Falle ist dies verboten, weil das Getreide im Preise steigen kann, u. dies wäre Wucher; der 1. Fall wird weiter erörtert.. R. GAMLIÉL PFLEGTE SEINEN QUOTENPÄCHTERN WEIZEN GEGEN WEIZEN ZUR AUSSAAT ZU BORGEN, UND BERECHNETE IHNEN, EINERLEI OB DER PREIS ZUERST HOCH UND NACHHER GEFALLEN ODER ZUERST NIEDRIG UND NACHHER GESTIEGEN WAR, DEN NIEDRIGEREN PREIS; ABER NICHT WEIL DIE HALAKHA SO IST, SONDERN WEIL ER ES MIT SICH SELBER STRENGER NAHM.",
+ "MAN DARF NICHT ZU SEINEM NÄCHSTEN SAGEN: BORGE MIR EINEN KOR WEIZEN UND ICH WERDE IHN DIR ZUR ERNTEZEIT ZURÜCKGEBEN, WOHL ABER DARF ER ZU IHM SAGEN: BORGE MIR BIS MEIN SOHN KOMMT, ODER: ICH DEN SCHLÜSSEL36 Wenn der Leihende solchen besitzt, so geht er sofort in den Besitz des Verleihenden über, er steigt dann später event, im Besitze des Verleihenden.FINDE ; HILLEL VERBIETET DIES. EBENSO SAGTE HILLEL AUCH, EINE FRAU DÜRFE IHRER GENOSSIN NUR DANN EINEN LAIB BROT BORGEN, WENN SIE IHN IHR IN GELD EINGESCHÄTZT HAT, DENN DER WEIZEN KÖNNTE SPÄTER IM PREISE STEIGEN UND SIE ZU EINER BEWUCHERUNG KOMMEN.",
+ "MAN DARF ZU SEINEM NÄCHSTEN SAGEN : JÄTE HEUTE MIT MIR, ICH WILL DAFÜR MORGEN MIT DIR JÄTEN; GRABE MIT MIR, ICH WILL DAFÜR MIT DIR GRABEN. MAN DARF ABER NICHT SAGEN: JÄTE MIT MIR, ICH WILL DAFÜR MIT DIR GRABEN; GRABE MIT MIR, ICH WILL DAFÜR MIT DIR JÄTEN37 Die Arbeit des anderen kann mitunter schwerer sein, u. dies wäre Wucher.. ALLE TAGE DER TROCKENEN JAHRESZEIT38 Man darf eine heutige Arbeitsleistung mit einer morgigen bezahlen, u. man befürchte nicht, das morgige Wetter kann schlechter u. die dadurch erschwerte Arbeit Wucher sein.SIND EINS, UND ALLE TAGE DER FEUCHTEN JAHRESZEIT SIND EINS. MAN DARF ABER NICHT ZU EINEM SAGEN: PFLÜGE MIT MIR IN DER TROCKENEN JAHRESZEIT, ICH WILL DAFÜR MIT DIR IN DER FEUCHTEN JAHRESZEIT PFLÜGEN. R. GAMLIÉL SAGT : ES GIBT AUCH EINEN VORHERIGEN WUCHER UND EINEN NACHTRÄGLICHEN WUCHER. ZUM BEISPIEL: WENN ER DIE ABSICHT HAT, VON IHM GELD ZU LEIHEN, UNO IHM ETWAS ÜBERSENDET MIT DER BEMERKUNG: DAMIT DU MIR LEIHEST, SO IST DIES VORHERIGER WUCHER; WENN ER VON IHM GELD GELIEHEN UND ES IHM ZURÜCKGEGEBEN HAT, UND IHM NACHHER ETWAS ÜBERSENDET MIT DER BEMERKUNG : FÜR DEIN GELD, DAS DU BEI MIR OHNE NUTZEN HATTEST, SO IST DIES NACHTRÄGLICHER WUCHER. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGTE: ES GIBT AUCH WUCHER IN WORTEN; ER DARF NÄMLICH NICHT ZU IHM SAGEN: WISSE, DASS JENER MANN AUS JENEM ORTE ANGEKOMMEN39 Der Schuldner darf dem Gläubiger als Äquivalent für das Leihen auch keine Mitteilung machen.IST",
+ "FOLGENDE ÜBERTRETEN DAS VERBOT: DER GLÄUBIGER, DER SCHULDNER, DER BÜRGE UND DIE ZEUGEN; DIE WEISEN SAGEN: AUCH DER SCHREIBER. SIE ÜBERTRETEN FOLGENDE VERBOTE :40 Lev. 25,37.du sollst nicht geben;41 Ib. V. 36.du sollst von ihm nicht nehmen ;42 Ex. 22,24.du sollst ihn nicht mahnen; 43 Ex. 22,24.du sollst ihm keinen Wucher auferlegen; UND:44 Lev. 19,14.vor einen Blinden sollst du kein Hindernis legen; fürchte dich vor deinem Gott, ich bin der Herr."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WENN JEMAND HANDWERKER GEMIETET UND EINER DEN ANDEREN GETÄUSCHT HAT, SO KÖNNEN SIE GEGEN EINANDER NUR GROLL HEGEN1 Ohne Anspruch auf Schadenersatz zu haben.. WENN JEMAND EINEN ESELTREIBER ODER EINEN WAGENFÜHRER2 So, falls man קרר statt קרר liest, jed. in keiner der bekannten Ausgaben u. Handschriften zu finden. GEMIETET HAT, UM BALDACHINTRÄGER3 Nach andr. Erklärung Sänftenträger (φοϱειαφόϱος, φοϱϵῖον); möglicherweise von priapus, priapische Symbole, die bei Hochzeitsfeiern gebraucht wurden, abzuleiten. ODER FLÖTEN FÜR EINE BRAUT ODER FÜR EINEN TOTEN ZU BRINGEN, ODER LÖHNER, DEN FLACHS AUS DER BEIZE ZU HOLEN, ODER FÜR IRGEND EINEN ANDEREN ZWECK, WOBEI EIN VERLUST IM VERZUGE VORLIEGT, UND SIE ZURÜCKTRETEN, SO KANN ER, WENN IN DER ORTSCHAFT KEINE ANDEREN LEUTE ZU HABEN4 Für den vereinbarten Lohn. SIND, AUF IHRE KOSTEN MIETEN5 Andere Leute für einen höheren Lohn. ODER SIE TAUSCHEN6 Ihnen eine Zulage versprechen u. nicht geben.",
+ "WENN JEMAND HANDWERKER GEMIETET HAT UND SIE ZURÜCKGETRETEN SIND7 Während der Arbeit., SO HABEN SIE DIE UNTERHAND8 Wenn der Preis der Arbeit sich inzwischen verändert hat.; IST DER EIGENTÜMER ZURÜCKGETRETEN, SO HAT ER DIE UNTERHAND. WER ABÄNDERT9 Von irgend einer Vereinbarung., HAT DIE UNTERHAND, UND WER ZURÜCKTRITT, HAT DIE UNTERHAND.",
+ "WENN JEMAND EINEN ESEL GEMIETET HAT, IHN IM GEBIRGE ZU FÜHREN, UND IHN IM TALE FÜHRT, IM TALE ZU FÜHREN, UND IHN IM GEBIRGE FÜHRT, UND ER VERENDET, SO IST ER, SELBST WENN ES DA ZEHN MIL SIND UND DORT ZEHN MIL SIND, ERSATZPFLICHTIG. WENN JEMAND EINEN ESEL GEMIETET HAT, IHN IM GEBIRGE ZU FÜHREN, UND IHN IM TALE FÜHRT, SO IST ER, WENN ER AUSGLEITET10 Und dadurch zu Schaden gekommen., ERSATZFREI11 Weil sich dies im Gebirge erst recht ereignet haben würde., UND WENN ER SICH ERHITZT12 Und dadurch zu Schaden gekommen.HAT, ERSATZPFLICHTIG13 Dieser Gefahr wäre er im Gebirge weniger ausgesetzt.; WENN ABER, IHN IM TALE ZU FÜHREN, UND IHN IM GEBIRGE FÜHRT, SO IST ER, WENN ER AUSGLEITET, ERSATZPFLICHTIG, UND WENN ER SICH ERHITZT HAT, ERSATZFREI; GESCHIEHT ES INFOLGE DES STEIGENS, SO IST ER ERSATZPFLICHTIG. WENN JEMAND EINEN ESEL GEMIETET HAT UND ER ERBLINDET14 So nach der gewöhnlichen Auslegung; eine eingehende Erklärung folgt weiter.ODER ZUR FRONARBEIT GENOMMEN WIRD, SO KANN ER ZU IHM15 Der Vermieter zum Mieter.SAGEN: DA HAST DU DEINES16 Der Mieter muß ihn erblindet benutzen bezw. warten, bis er zurückgegeben wird.; WENN ER ABER VERENDET ODER BRICHT, SO MUSS ER IHM EINEN ANDEREN ESEL STELLEN17 Da er ihm einen Esel vermietet hat, od. er zahle ihm den Mietslohn zurück..",
+ "WENN JEMAND EINE KUH18 Samt den Ackergeräten u. der Bedienung.GEMIETET HAT, IM GEBIRGE ZU PFLÜGEN UND MIT IHR IM TALE PFLÜGT, SO IST ER, WENN DIE PFLUGSCHAR ZERBRICHT, ERSATZFREI19 Dies würde im Gebirge, wo die Erde härter ist, sich erst recht ereignet haben.; WENN ABER IM TALE ZU PFLÜGEN UND IM GEBIRGE20 In der Erstausgabe ‘im Tale’, jed. Druckfehler.PFLÜGT, SO IST ER, WENN DIE PFLUGSCHAR ZERBRICHT, ERSATZPFLICHTIG . WENN HÜLSENFRÜCHTE ZU DRESCHEN UND GETREIDE DRISCHT, SO IST ER21 Wenn die Kuh ausgleitet u. zu Schaden kommt.ERSATZFREI ; WENN ABER GETREIDE ZU DRESCHEN UND HÜLSENFRÜCHTE DRISCHT, SO IST ER ERSATZPFLICHTIG, WEIL HÜLSENFRÜCHTE AUSGLEITEN MACHEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND EINEN ESEL GEMIETET HAT, UM MIT DIESEM WEIZEN ZU HOLEN, UND GERSTE22 Das vereinbarte Gewicht.HOLT, SO IST ER23 Wenn das Tier zu Schaden gekommen ist.ERSATZPFLICHTIG24 Die Gerste, die spezifisch leichter ist, hat ein größeres Volumen, u. dies erhöht die Belastung des Tieres. ; UM GETREIDE ZU HOLEN, UND STROH HOLT, SO IST ER ERSATZPFLICHTIG, WEIL DAS VOLUMEN DIE LAST BESCHWERLICH MACHT. EIN LETHEKH25 1 Lethekh = 15 Seá, 1 S. = 6 Kab.WEIZEN ZU HOLEN, UND EIN LETHEKH GERSTE26 In gleichem Volumen von geringerem Gewichte.HOLT, SO IST ER ERSATZFREI; WENN ER ABER DIE LAST ERHÖHT, SO IST ER ERSATZPFLICHTIG. UM WIEVIEL MUSS ER SIE ERHÖHT27 Falls er das Tier zum Transporte der vereinbarten Getreideart benutzt hat.HABEN, UM ERSATZPFLICHTIG ZU SEIN? SYMMACHOS SAGTE IM NAMEN R. MEÍRS, UM EINE SEÁ28 1 Lethekh = 15 Seá, 1 S. = 6 Kab.BEI EINEM KAMEL, UM DREI KAB29 1 Lethekh = 15 Seá, 1 S. = 6 Kab.BEI EINEM ESEL30 Wenn man sie zum Transporte eines Lethekh gemietet hat..",
+ "ALLE HANDWERKER31 Akkordarbeiter, die die defekte Sache bezw. das Material ins Haus erhalten.GELTEN ALS LOHNHÜTER; ALLE GELTEN SIE ABER, SOBALD SIE GESAGT HABEN: NIMM DEINES UND HOLE DAS GELD, ALS UNENTGELTLICHE HÜTER. SAGT JEMAND: HÜTE MIR UND ICH HÜTE DIR, SO GILT ER ALS LOHNHÜTER. SAGT JEMAND ZU EINEM: HÜTE DIES, UND ERWIDERT DIESER: LEGE ES VOR MICH HIN, SO GILT ER ALS UNENTGELTLICHER HÜTER. WER AUF EIN PFAND GEBORGT HAT, GILT ALS LOHNHÜTER32 Für das Pfand; der Lohn besteht in der Ausübung des Gebotes.",
+ "R. JEHUDA SAGT, BORGTE ER IHM GELD, SO GILT ER ALS UNENTGELTLICHER HÜTER33 Die Ausübung eines Gebotes gilt nicht als Lohn., BORGTE ER IHM FRÜCHTE, SO GILT ER ALS LOHNHÜTER34 Er hat einen Nutzen, denn die Früchte können bei ihm verfaulen.. ABBA ŠAÚL SAGT, MAN DÜRFE DAS PFAND EINES ARMEN VERMIETEN, UM DIE SCHULD ZU AMORTISIEREN, DENN DIES IST EBENSO ALS LIEFERE MAN VERLORENES AB.",
+ "WENN JEMAND EIN FASS VON EINEM ORTE NACH EINEM ANDEREN UMTRÄGT UND ES ZERBRICHT, EINERLEI OB EIN UNENTGELTLICHER ODER EIN LOHNHÜTER, SO MUSS ER SCHWÖREN35 Daß es nicht durch Fahrlässigkeit geschehen ist.. R. ELIE͑ZER SAGTE : FREILICH MUSS36 Dies ist eine überlieferte Halakha.SOWOHL DER EINE ALS AUCH DER ANDERE SCHWÖREN; ES WUNDERT MICH ABER, WIESO DENN DER EINE ODER DER ANDERE SCHWÖREN SOLL37 Wird weiter erklärt.."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WENN JEMAND LÖHNER GEMIETET HAT UND ZU IHNEN SAGT, DASS SIE FRÜH ANFANGEN UND SPÄT AUFHÖREN SOLLEN, SO KANN ER, WENN ES EIN ORT IST, DA ES NICHT ÜBLICH IST, FRÜH ANZUFANGEN UND SPÄT AUFZUHÖREN, SIE DAZU NICHT ZWINGEN. WO ES ÜBLICH IST, SIE ZU BEKÖSTIGEN, MUSS ER SIE BEKÖSTIGEN, IHNEN ZUKOST1 Wörtl. Süßes, Süßigkeiten. ZU GEBEN, MUSS ER IHNEN ZUKOST GEBEN. ALLES NACH DEM LANDESBRAUCHE. EINST SPRACH R. JOḤANAN B. MATHJA ZU SEINEM SOHNE : GEH, MIETE FÜR UNS LÖHNER. DA GING ER HIN UND VERABREDETE MIT IHNEN BEKÖSTIGUNG. ALS ER ZU SEINEM VATER ZURÜCKKAM, SPRACH DIESER ZU IHM: MEIN SOHN, SELBST WENN DU IHNEN EINE MAHLZEIT GLEICH DER DES ŠELOMO ZU SEINER ZEIT2 Cf. iReg. 5,2ff. BEREITEST, HAST DU DEINER PFLICHT GEGEN SIE NICHT GENÜGT, DENN SIE SIND KINDER VON ABRAHAM, JIÇḤAQ UND JA͑QOB. BEVOR SIE NOCH DIE ARBEIT ANFANGEN, GEH HIN UND SAGE IHNEN! UNTER DER BEDINGUNG, DASS IHR VON MIR NUR BROT UND HÜLSENFRÜCHTE ZU BEANSPRUCHEN HABT. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGTE : ER BRAUCHTE DIES NICHT ZU SAGEN, DENN MAN RICHTE SICH BEI ALLEM NACH DEM LANDESBRAUCHE.",
+ "FOLGENDE DÜRFEN NACH DER TORA ESSEN3 Von den Früchten, bei welchen sie als Löhner arbeiten.: WER BEI AM BODEN HAFTEN DEM BEI DER ABSCHLUSSARBEIT4 Wenn die Früchte gepflückt werden.ARBEITET, UND WER BEI VOM BODEN GETRENNTEM VOR DER ABSCHLUSSARBEIT5 Wie weiter erklärt wird, hinsichtlich der Entrichtung der priesterlichen Abgaben; diese erfolgt, sobald die Früchte vollständig genußfertig, bezw. eingebracht sind; cf. Mas. 1,2.ARBEITET, ABER NUR BEI BODEN ERZEUGNISSEN. FOLGENDE DÜRFEN NICHT ESSEN: WER BEI AM BODEN HAFTENDEM VOR DER ABSGHLUSSARBEIT6 Beispielsweise beim Jäten udgl.ARBEITET, BEI VOM BODEN GETRENN TEM NACH DER ABSCHLUSSARBEIT7 Beispielsweise beim Trocknen, Sortieren udgl., UND BEI DINGEN, DIE KEINE BODENER-ZEUGNISSE SIND8 Beispielsweise bei Milchwirtschaftsarbeiten..",
+ "WENN DER LÖHNER MIT DEN HÄNDEN, ABER NICHT MIT DEN FÜSSEN, MIT DEN FÜSSEN, ABER NICHT MIT DEN HÄNDEN, ODER AUCH NUR MIT DER SCHULTER ARBEITET, SO DARF ER9 Von den Früchten, bei welchen er arbeitet.ESSEN. R. JOSE B. R. JEHUDA SAGT, NUR WENN ER MIT DEN HÄNDEN UND DEN FÜSSEN ARBEITET.",
+ "ARBEITET ER BEI FEIGEN, SO DARF ER KEINE TRAUBEN ESSEN, UND WENN BEI TRAUBEN, SO DARF ER KEINE FEIGEN10 Auch wenn er bei beiden zu arbeiten hat.ESSEN; WOHL ABER DARF ER SICH ENTHALTEN, BIS ER ZU EINER STELLE SCHÖNER FRÜCHTE KOMMT, UND VON DIESEN ESSEN. DIES ALLES SAGTEN SIE, NUR WÄHREND11 Daß er nur dann essen darf.DER ARBEIT, ABER MIT BERÜCKSICHTIGUNG DER VORSCHRIFT, DEM EIGENTÜMER SEIN VERLORENES12 Dh. um den Eigentümer vor Verlust durch Zeitversäumnis der Arbeiter zu schützen.WIEDERZUBRINGEN, SAGTEN SIE, DASS DIE LÖHNER BEIM GEHEN VON EINER REIHE ZUR ANDEREN ESSEN DÜRFEN, EBENSO BEI IHRER RÜCKKEHR13 Dem Eigentümer selbst ist dies lieber, damit sie nicht durch das Essen von der Arbeit abgehalten werden.AUS DER KELTER; EBENSO EIN ESEL, WENN ER ABGELADEN WIRD.",
+ "DER LÖHNER DARF SOGAR FÜR EINEN DENAR GURKEN AUFESSEN, SOGAR FÜR EINEN DENAR GETROCKNETE DATTELN. R. ELEA͑ZAR ḤASMA SAGT, DER LÖHNER DÜRFE NICHT MEHR ESSEN ALS SEIN LOHN BETRÄGT. DIE WEISEN ERLAUBEN DIES; DOCH BELEHRE MAN EINEN MENSCHEN, KEIN FRESSER ZU SEIN, DENN ER WÜRDE DIE TÜR VOR SICH ABSCHLIESSEN14 Niemand würde ihn mieten wollen..",
+ "MAN DARF VEREINBAREN15 Von den Früchten nicht zu essen.FÜR SICH SELBER, FÜR SEINEN ERWACHSENEN SOHN, FÜR SEINE ERWACHSENE TOCHTER, FÜR SEINEN ERWACHSENEN SKLAVEN, FÜR SEINE ERWACHSENE MAGD UND FÜR SEINE FRAU, WEIL SIE VERSTAND HABEN, NICHT ABER DARF MAN VEREINBAREN FÜR SEINEN MINDERJÄHRIGEM SOHN, FÜR SEINE MINDERJÄHRIGE TOCHTER, FÜR SEINEN MINDERJÄHRIGEN SKLAVEN, FÜR SEINE MINDERJÄHRIGE MAGD UND FÜR SEIN VIEH, WEIL SIE KEINEN VERSTAND HABEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND LÖHNER BEI EINER VIERJÄHRIGEN PFLANZUNG16 Baumfrüchte dürfen in den ersten 3 Jahren nicht gegessen werden, im 4. Jahre müssen sie ausgelöst werden, u. erst dann ist der Genuß erlaubt; cf. Lev. 19,23ff.MIETET, SO DÜRFEN SIE VON DEN FRÜCHTEN NICHT ESSEN; HAT ER EIS IHNEN NICHT GESAGT, SO MUSS ER DIE FRÜCHTE AUSLÖSEN UND SIE ESSEN LASSEN. SIND ES17 Die Feigen, bezw. der Wein, bei welchen die Löhner beschäftigt sind.AUSEINANDER GEFALLENE FEIGEN, GEÖFFNETE18 Sie waren also bereits zehntpflichtig.FÄSSER, SO DÜRFEN SIE VON DIESEN NICHT ESSEN; HAT ER ES IHNEN NICHT GESAGT, SO MUSS ER DEN ZEHNTEN ENTRICHTEN UND SIE ESSEN LASSEN.",
+ "FRUCHTHÜTER DÜRFEN ESSEN19 Von den Früchten, die sie bewachen.NACH DEM LANDESBRAUCHE, NICHT ABER NACH DER TORA. ES GIBT VIERERLEI HÜTER20 Cf. Ex. 22,6ff.: DER UNENTGELTLICHE HÜTER, DER ENTLEIHER, DER LOHNHÜTER UND DER MIETER. DER UNENTGELTLICHE HÜTER KANN IN ALLEN FÄLLEN21 Er ist auch bei Verlust u. Diebstahl, obgleich dies bei sorgfältiger Bewachung vermieden werden könnte, ersatzfrei.SCHWÖREN; DER ENTLEIHER MUSS IN ALLEN FÄLLEN22 Auch bei einem unabwendbaren Unfall.BEZAHLEN; DER LOHNHÜTER UND DER MIETER KÖNNEN SCHWÖREN, WENN DAS VIEH EINEN BRUCH ERLITTEN HAT, GEFANGEN WORDEN ODER VERENDET IST, UND MÜSSEN BEZAHLEN BEI ABHANDENKOMMEN UND DIEBSTAHL.",
+ "EIN WOLF23 Der eine Herde überfällt u. Schaden anrichtet.IST KEIN UNGLÜCKSFALL24 Hinsichtlich der Haftbarkeit eines Lohnhüters od. Mieters; sie waren verpflichtet ihm entgegenzutreten., ZWEI WÖLFE SIND EIN UNGLÜCKSFALL. R. JEHUDA SAGT, ZUR ZEIT EINER WOLFSPLAGE25 Cf. Tan. Fol. 22a.GILT AUCH EIN EINZELNER WOLF ALS UNGLÜGKSFALL. ZWEI HUNDE SIND KEIN UNGLÜCKSFALL. JADDUA͑ DER BABYLONIER SAGTE IM NAMEN R. MEÍRS: KOMMEN SIE VON EINER SEITE, SO IST DIES KEIN UNGLÜCKSFALL, WENN VON ZWEI SEITEN; SO IST DIES EIN UNGLÜCKSFALL. EIN WEGELAGERER26 Der bewaffnet ist u. den Hüter überfällt.IST EIN UNGLÜCKSFALL. EIN LÖWE, EIN BÄR, EIN LEOPARD, EIN PANTHER UND EINE SCHLANGE SIND UNGLÜCRSFÄLLE. DIES NUR, WENN SIE VON SELBST GEKOMMEN SIND, HAT ER ABER DAS VIEH NACH EINEM ORTE GEFÜHRT, WO SCHAREN VON WILDEN TIEREN UND WEGELAGERER VORHANDEN SIND, SO IST DIES KEIN UNGLÜCKSFALL27 Er hat den Überfall verschuldet..",
+ "IST DAS VIEH AUF GEWÖHNLICHE WEISE VERENDET, SO IST DIES EIN UNGLÜCKSFALL, WENN ER ES ABER GEQUÄLT HAT28 Durch Hunger, Durst od. unerträgliche Temperatur.UND ES VERENDET IST, SO IST DIES KEIN UNGLÜCKSFALL. IST ES AUF DIE SPITZE EINES FELSEN GESTIEGEN29 Cf. supra Fol. 36b.UND ABGESTÜRZT, SO IST DIES EIN UNGLÜCKSFALL, WENN ER ES ABER AUF DIE SPITZE EINES FELSEN GEBRACHT HAT UND ES ABGESTÜRZT IST, SO IST DIES KEIN UNGLÜCKSFALL30 Er hat den ersten Absturz verschuldet.. EIN UNENTGELTLICHER HÜTER RANN VEREINBAREN, VOM SCHWURE FREI ZU SEIN, EBENSO AUCH EIN ENTLEIHER, VOM ERSATZE FREI ZU SEIN, UND EBENSO EIN LOHNHÜTER UND EIN MIETER VOM SCHWURE, BEZIEHUNGSWEISE VOM ERSATZE31 Cf. supra Fol. 93a.FREI ZU SEIN. WENN JEMAND EINE VEREINBARUNG GEGEN EINE BESTIMMUNG DER TORA TRIFFT, SO IST DIE VEREINBARUNG UNGÜLTIG, UND JEDE VEREINBARUNG, DER DIE LEISTUNG VORANGEHT, IST UNGÜLTIG32 Und ebenso auch, wenn die Bedingung überhaupt nicht ausführbar ist.; WENN ER ABER DIE BEDINGUNG SPÄTER ERFÜLLEN KANN UND SIE VORHER GESTELLT HAT, SO IST DIE VEREINBARUNG GÜLTIG33 Bei jeder Vereinbarung muß die Bedingung, von der die Leistung abhängig gemacht wird, vorher, als Hauptsatz, genannt werden (vgl. zBs. Num. 32,29); wenn aber die Leistung zuerst, als Hauptsatz genannt wurde, so muß diese eingehalten werden, auch wenn die Bedingung nicht erfüllt worden ist..",
+ "WENN JEMAND EINE VEREINBARUNG GEGEN EINE BESTIMMUNG DER TORA TRIFFT, SO IST DIE VEREINBARUNG UNGÜLTIG, UND JEDE VEREINBARUNG, DER DIE LEISTUNG VORANGEHT, IST UNGÜLTIG34 Und ebenso auch, wenn die Bedingung überhaupt nicht ausführbar ist.; WENN ER ABER DIE BEDINGUNG SPÄTER ERFÜLLEN KANN UND SIE VORHER GESTELLT HAT, SO IST DIE VEREINBARUNG GÜLTIG35 Bei jeder Vereinbarung muß die Bedingung, von der die Leistung abhängig gemacht wird, vorher, als Hauptsatz, genannt werden (vgl. zBs. Num. 32,29); wenn aber die Leistung zuerst, als Hauptsatz genannt wurde, so muß diese eingehalten werden, auch wenn die Bedingung nicht erfüllt worden ist.."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WENN JEMAND EINE KUH ENTLIEHEN UND IHREN EIGENTÜMER MIT ENTLIEHEN ODER IHREN EIGENTÜMER MIT GEMIETET HAT, ODER WENN ER IHREN EIGENTÜMER ENTLIEHEN ODER GEMIETET UND NACHHER DIE KUH GEMIETET HAT UND SIE VERENDET, SO IST ER ERSATZFREI, DENN ES HEISST: 1 Ex. 22,14.wenn aber der Eigentümer zugegen war, so braucht er es nicht zu bezahlen. WENN ER ARER ZUERST DIE KUH ENTLIEHEN UND NACHHER DEN EIGENTÜMER ENTLIEHEN ODER GEMIETET HAT UND SIE VERENDET, SO IST ER ERSATZPFLICHTIG2 Obgleich der Eigentümer zur Zeit des Unfalls in seinem Dienste stand., DENN ES HEISST: und der Eigentümer nicht zugegen war, so muß er es bezahlen.",
+ "WENN JEMAND EINE KUH ENTLIEHEN HAT, EINEN HALBEN TAG LEIHWEISE UND EINEN HALBEN TAG ZUR MIETE, HEUTE LEIHWEISE UND MORGEN ZUR MIETE, ODER WENN ER EINE GEMIETET UND EINE ENTLIEHEN HAT, UND EINE VERENDET IST, UND DER VERLEIHER SAGT, DIE ENTLIEHENE SEI VERENDET, BEZIEHUNGSWEISE, SIE SEI AM TAGE, AN DEM SIE ENTLIEHEN WAR, VERENDET, BEZIEHUNGSWEISE SIE SEI ZUR ZEIT, AN DER SIE ENTLIEHEN WAR, VERENDET, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, ER WISSE ES3 Welche Kuh, bezw. zu welcher Zeit.NIGHT, SO IST ER ERSATZPFLICHTIG. WENN DER MIETER SAGT, DIE VERMIETETE SEI VERENDET, BEZIEHUNGSWEISE SIE SEI AM TAGE, AN DEM SIE VERMIETET WAR, VERENDET, BEZIEHUNGSWEISE SIE SEI ZUR ZEIT, AN DER SIE VERMIETET WAR, VERENDET, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, ER WISSE ES NICHT, SO IST ER ERSATZFREI. WENN DER EINE SAGT, DIE ENTLIEHENE, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, DIE VERMIETETE, SO MUSS DER MIETER SCHWÖREN, DASS DIE VERMIETETE VERENDET SEI. WENN DER EINE SAGT, ER WISSE ES NIGHT, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, ER WISSE ES NICHT, SO TEILEN SIE.",
+ "WENN JEMAND EINE KUH VERLEIHT UND SIE IHM4 Dem Entleiher.DURCH SEINEN SOHN, SEINEN SKLAVEN, SEINEN VERTRETER, ODER DURCH DEN SOHN. DEN SKLAVEN ODER DEN VERTRETER DES ENTLEIHERS SCHICKT UND SIE VERENDET5 Während des Transportes., SO IST DER ENTLEIHER ERSATZFREI6 Da sie noch nicht in seinen Besitz gekommen war.. WENN ABER DER ENTLEIHER ZU IHM GESAGT HAT: SCHICKE SIE MIR DURCH MEINEN SOHN. MEINEN SKLAVEN, MEINEN VERTRETER, ODER DURCH DEINEN SOHN, DEINEN SKLAVEN ODER DEINEN VERTRETER, ODER WENN DER VERLEIHER ZU IHM GESAGT HAT: ICH SCHICKE SIE DIR DURCH MEINEN SOHN, MEINEN SKLAVEN, MEINEN VERTRETER, DEINEN SOHN, DEINEN SKLAVEN ODER DEINEN VERTRETER, UND DER ENTLEIHER IHM ERWIDERT HAT I SCHICKE, UND ER SIE GESCHICKT HAT UND SIE VERENDET, SO IST DER ENTLEIHER7 In diesem Falle geht die Kuh, sobald der Vertreter sie in Empfang nimmt, in den Besitz des Entleihers über.ERSATZPFLICHTIG. DASSELBE GILT AUCH VON DER RÜCKGABE8 Wenn sie während des Transportes verendet; hatte der Verleiher die Übersendung beauftragt, so ging sie bei der Übergabe an den Vertreter in seinen Besitz über u. der Entleiher ist ersatzfrei; wenn aber nicht, so befand sie sich noch im Besitze des Entleihers u. er ist ersatzpflichtig..",
+ "WENN JEMAND EINE KUH AUF EINEN ESEL GETAUSCHT9 Bei einem Kaufgeschäfte eignet der Käufer die Sache, erst wenn er sie an sich gezogen hat (vgl. S. 583 Anm. 2), u. in diesem Falle kann der Käufer sehen, ob die Kuh bereits geworfen hat; ein Tauschgeschäft aber wird perfekt, sobald einer der Kontrahenten die Sache an sich gezogen hat, u. in diesem Falle braucht die Kuh beim Tausche nicht zugegen zu sein.UND SIE GEWORFEN HAT, ODER EINE MAGD VERKAUFT UND SIE GEBOREN HAT, UND DER EINE SAGT, DIES SEI ERFOLGT BEVOR ER SIE VERKAUFT HAT, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, NACHDEM ER SIE GEKAUFT10 Sie streiten also über den Besitz des Kalbes, bezw. des Kindes.HAT, SO TEILEN SIE. WENN DER VERKÄUFER ZWEI SKLAVEN HAT, EINEN GROSSEN UND EINEN KLEINEN, EBENSO AUCH ZWEI FELDER, EIN GROSSES UND EIN KLEINES, UND DER KÄUFER SAGT, ER HABE DEN GROSSEN GEKAUFT, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, ER WISSE ES NICHT, SO HAT ER DEN GROSSEN ERWORBEN. WENN DER VERKÄUFER SAGT, ER HABE DEN KLEINEN VERKAUFT, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, ER WISSE ES NICHT, SO ERHÄLT ER NUR DEN KLEINEN. WENN DER EINE SAGT, DEN GROSSEN, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, DEN KLEINEN, SO SCHWÖRE DER VERKÄUFER, DASS ER DEN KLEINEN VERKAUFT HABE. WENN DER EINE SAGT, ER WISSE ES NICHT, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, ER WISSE ES NICHT, SO TEILEN SIE.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINE OLIVENBÄUME ZUM ABHOLZEN VERKAUFT HAT, UND SIE FRÜCHTE TRAGEN, DIE WENIGER ALS EIN VIERTELLOG ÖL VON DER SEÁ BRINGEN, SO GEHÖREN SIE DEM EIGENTÜMER DER OLIVENBÄUME11 Dem Käufer, da der Verkäufer auf eine solche Kleinigkeit verzichten muß.; WENN SIE ABER MEHR ALS EIN VIERTELLOG VON DER SEÁ BRINGEN, UND DER EINE SAGT, SEINE OLIVENBÄUME HABEN ES12 Die Früchte u. das Öl.GEBRACHT, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, SEIN BODEN HABE ES GEBRACHT, SO TEILEN SIE. WENN EINEM EIN STROM SEINE OLIVENBÄUME FORTGERISSEN UND SIE IN DAS FELD SEINES NÄCHSTEN VERSETZT HAT, UND DER EINE SAGT, SEINE OLIVENBÄUME HABEN ES GEBRACHT, UND DER ANDERE SAGT, SEIN BODEN HABE ES GEBRACHT, SO TEILEN SIE.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN IN DER REGENZEIT EIN HAUS VERMIETET HAT, SO KANN ER IHN VOM HÜTTENFESTE BIS ZUM PESAḤFESTE13 Vom Beginne bis zum Ablauf des Winters. NICHT HINAUSSETZEN; IM SOMMER NACH DREISSIG TAGEN. IN GROSSTÄDTEN14 Wo Wohnungen noch schwerer zu haben sind. SOWOHL IM SOMMER ALS AUCH IN DER REGENZEIT ERST NACH ZWÖLF MONATEN. BEI KAUFLÄDEN SOWOHL IN KLEINEN STÄDTEN ALS AUCH IN GROSSTÄDTEN ERST NACH ZWÖLF MONATEN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, BEI BÄCKERLÄDEN UND FÄRBERLÄDEN NACH DREI JAHREN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND AN SEINEN NÄCHSTEN EIN HAUS VERMIETET, SO IST DER VERMIETER ZUR ANFERTIGUNG VON TÜR, RIEGEL, SCHLOSS UND ALLEM ANDEREN, WAS EINE HANDWERKERARBEIT IST, VERPFLICHTET; WAS ABER KEINE HANDWERKERARBEIT IST, MUSS DER MIETER MACHEN. DER MIST GEHÖRT DEM HAUSBESITZER, DEM MIETER GEHÖRT NUR DAS, WAS AUS DEM OFEN UND AUS DEM HERDE KOMMT.",
+ "WENN JEMAND AN SEINEN NÄCHSTEN EIN HAUS AUF EIN JAHR VERMIETET HAT, SO IST, WENN DAS JAHR SCHALTJAHR15 Das Schaltjahr (nach jüd. Zeitrechnung, nach dem Mondzyklus) hat einen Monat mehr, also 13 Monate; dies wurde früher nicht im voraus berechnet, sondern während des Jahres selbst unter Berücksichtigung verschiedener Umstände festgestellt; cf. Syn. Fol. 11a.GEWORDEN IST, DIES ZUGUNSTEN DES MIETERS ERFOLGT; HAT ER ES IHM MONATLICH VERMIETET, SO IST, WENN DAS JAHR SCHALTJAHR GEWORDEN IST, DIES ZUGUNSTEN DES VERMIETERS ERFOLGT. EINST MIETETE JEMAND IN SEPPHORIS VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EIN BADEHAUS UM ZWÖLF GOLDDENARE FÜR DAS JAHR, EINEN GOLDDENAR FÜR DEN MONAT. ALS DIE SACHE VOR R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL UND R. JOSE KAM, SAGTEN SIE, DIE MIETE FÜR DEN SCHALTMONAT SEI ZU TEILEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND AN SEINEN NÄCHSTEN EIN HAUS VERMIETET HAT UND ES EINSTÜRZT, SO MUSS ER IHM EIN ANDERES HAUS HERSTELLEN. WAR ES KLEIN, SO DARF ER ES NICHT GROSS MACHEN, WAR ES GROSS, SO DARF ER ES NICHT KLEIN MACHEN. BESTAND ES AUS EINEM RAUME, SO DARF ER DARAUS NICHT ZWEI RÄUME MACHEN, WAREN ES ZWEI, SO DARF ER DARAUS NICHT EINEN MACHEN. ER DARF DIE ANZAHL DER FENSTER WEDER VERMINDERN NOCH VERMEHREN, ES SEI DENN, DASS BEIDE EINVERSTANDEN SIND."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WENN JEMAND VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EIN FELD IN PACHT ÜBERNIMMT, SO MUSS ER, WO ES ÜBLICH IST, DIE HALME ZU MÄHEN, SIE MÄHEN, SIE ZU ENTWURZELN, SIE ENTWURZELN, DAS FELD NACHHER1 Nach der Ernte, damit kein Unkraut nachwachse. ZU PFLÜGEN, ES NACHHER PFLÜGEN. ALLES NACH DEM LANDESBRAUCHE. WIE SIE2 Der Eigentümer u. der Quotenpächter od. Feldbauer. DAS GETREIDE TEILEN, SO TEILEN SIE AUCH STROH UND STOPPELN, UND WIE SIE DEN WEIN TEILEN, SO TEILEN SIE AUCH RANKEN UND STÄBE3 An welche die Reben befestigt werden.. BEIDE MÜSSEN DIE STÄBE LIEFERN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EIN FELD IN PACHT ÜBERNOMMEN HAT, UND ES EIN RIESELFELD4 Die Bewässerungsanlage ist von Einfluß auf den Pachtpreis.ODER EIN BAUMFELD5 Wenn sich im Felde auch Obstbäume befinden; auch dies ist für den Pächter von Bedeutung, da er bei diesen keine Mühewaltung hat u. am Ertrage dennoch beteiligt ist.IST, SO KANN ER IHM, WENN DIE QUELLE AUSTROCKNET ODER DER BAUM GEFÄLLT WIRD, NICHTS VON DER PACHT ABZIEHEN6 Da er beim Pachten nicht bekundet hat, daß er ihm dieserhalb mehr zahle.. WENN ER ABER GESAGT HATTE: VERPACHTE MIR DIESES RLESELFELD, ODER: DIESES BAUMFELD, SO KANN ER IHM, WENN DIE QUELLE AUSTROCKNET ODER DER BAUM GEFÄLLT WIRD, VON DER PACHT ABZIEHEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EIN FELD IN QUOTENPACHT ÜBERNOMMEN HAT UND ES BRACH LIEGEN LIESS, SO SCHÄTZE MAN, WIEVIEL ES BRINGEN KÖNNTE, UND DANACH ZAHLE ER IHM, DENN ER SCHRIEB IHM FOLGENDES: WENN ICH ES BRACH LIEGEN LASSE UND NICHT BEARBEITE7 In erforderlichem Maße., SO BEZAHLE ICH DIR MIT DEM BESTEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EIN FELD IN PACHT ÜBERNOMMEN HAT UND ES NICHT AUSJÄTEN WILL, INDEM ER ZUM EIGENTÜMER SPRICHT: WAS GEHT DIES DICH AN, ICH ZAHLE DIR JA DEINE PACHT, SO HÖRE MAN NICHT AUF IHN, WEIL DIESER IHM ERWIDERN KANN: MORGEN TRITTST DU AUS UND ES BRINGT MIR UNKRAUT HERVOR8 Das Feld leidet dadurch auch bei der nächstjährigen Ernte..",
+ "WENN JEMAND VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EIN FELD IN PACHT ÜBERNOMMEN HAT UND ES KEINEN ERTRAG BRINGT, SO MUSS ER, WENN ES SOVIEL BRINGT, DASS MAN DARAUS EINEN HAUFEN MACHEN ICANN, SICH DAMIT BEFASSEN9 Der Eigentümer kann ihn dazu zwingen.. R. JEHUDA SPRACH: WELCHER MASSTAB IST EIN HAUFE10 Es ist ja die Größe des Feldes zu berücksichtigen.!? VIELMEHR, WENN ES SOVIEL BRINGT, WIEVIEL DIE AUSSAAT BETRÄGT.",
+ "WENN JEMAND VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EIN FELD IN PACHT ÜBERNOMMEN HAT UND HEUSCHRECKEN ES ABGEFRESSEN HABEN ODER ES VERHEERT11 Durch Kornbrand od. Sturm. WURDE, SO KANN ER IHM, WENN DIES EINE LANDPLAGE IST, VON DER PACHT ABZIEHEN, UND WENN ES KEINE LANDPLAGE IST, NICHTS VON DER PACHT ABZIEHEN. R. JEHUDA SAGT, HAT ER ES FÜR BARGELD ÜBERNOMMEN, KÖNNE ER IHM OB SO ODER SO VON DER PACHT NICHTS ABZIEHEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EIN FELD FÜR ZEHN KOR WEIZEN JÄHRLICH IN PACHT ÜBERNOMMEN HAT UND DIE ERNTE SCHLECHT AUSFÄLLT, SO GEBE ER IHM VON DIESER; IST DER WEIZEN BESONDERS GUT, SO KANN ER ZU IHM NICHT SAGEN, ER WERDE IHM WELCHEN AUF DEM MARKTE KAUFEN, VIELMEHR MUSS ER IHM VON DIESEM GEBEN.",
+ "WENN JEMAND VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EIN FELD IN PACHT ÜBERNOMMEN HAT, UM ES MIT GERSTE ZU BESÄEN, SO DARF ER ES NICHT MIT WEIZEN12 Dieser entzieht dem Boden mehr Kraft.BESÄEN, WENN ABER MIT WEIZEN ZU BESÄEN, SO DARF ER ES MIT GERSTE BESÄEN; R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL VERBIETET ES. WENN MIT GETREIDE ZU BESÄEN, SO DARF ER ES NICHT MIT HÜLSENFRÜCHTEN13 Ebenfalls aus dem Anm. 127 angegebenen Grunde.BESÄEN, WENN ABER MIT HÜLSENFRÜCHTEN ZU BESÄEN, SO DARF ER ES MIT GETREIDE BESÄEN; R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL VERBIETET ES.",
+ "WER VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EIN FELD AUF WENIGE JAHRE IN PACHT ÜBERNOMMEN HAT, DARF ES NICHT MIT FLACHS14 Dieser schwächt sehr den Boden u. erst nach 7 Jahren erlangt er seine frühere Ergiebigkeit.BESÄEN, AUCH ERHÄLT ER NICHTS VON DEN BALKEN DER SYKOMOREN15 Die Äste dieser Bäume werden als Nutzholz abgehauen u. wachsen erst nach 7 Jahren nach.. HAT ER ES AUF SIEBEN JAHRE ÜBERNOMMEN, SO DARF ER ES IM ERSTEN JAHRE MIT FLACHS BESÄEN, AUCH BALREN DER SYKOMOREN ABHAUEN16 Da bei seinem Austritte der Boden wieder gekräftig ist, bezw. die Äste nachgewachsen sind..",
+ "WENN JEMAND VON SEINEM NÄCHSTEN EIN FELD AUF EIN SEPTENNIUM UM SIEBENHUNDERT ZUZ IN PACHT ÜBERNOMMEN HAT, SO ZÄHLT DAS SIEBENTJAHR17 In dem das Feld brach liegen bleiben muß; der Pächter kann ihm dafür nichts abziehen.MIT; HAT ER ES VON IHM AUF SIEBEN JAHRE UM SIEBENHUNDERT ZUZ ÜBERNOMMEN, SO ZÄHLT DAS SIEBENTJAHR NICHT MIT.",
+ "EIN FÜR DEN TAG GEMIETETER KANN SEINEN LOHN DIE GANZE NACHT18 Die unmittelbar auf den Tag folgt.EINFORDERN: EIN FÜR DIE NACHT GEMIETETER KANN SEINEN LOHN DEN GANZEN TAG EINFORDERN; EIN AUF STUNDEN GEMIETETER KANN SEINEN LOHN DEN GANZEN TAG UND DIE GANZE NACHT EINFORDERN. EIN AUF EINE WOCHE, EINEN MONAT, EIN JAHR ODER EIN SEPTENNIUM GEMIETETER KANN, WENN ER AM TAGE AUFHÖRT, DEN GANZEN TAG19 An dem er austritt., UND WENN ER NACHTS AUFHÖRT, DIE GANZE NACHT UND DEN GANZEN TAG SEINEN LOHN EINFORDERN.",
+ "SOWOHI. VOM LOHNE FÜR MENSCHEN ALS AUCH VOM LOHNE FÜR VIEH UND GERÄTE GELTEN DIE VORSCHRIFTEN:20 Dt. 24,15.am selben Tage sollst du ihm seinen Lohn geben, UND21 Lev. 19,13.du sollst den Lohn eines Mietlings nicht bei dir bis zum Morgen übernachten lassen. DIES NUR DANN, WENN DER ARBEITER IHN MAHNT, WENN ER IHN ABER NICHT MAHNT, SO ÜBERTRITT ER SIE NICHT; VERWEIST ER IHN AN EINEN KRÄMER22 Den er beauftragt hat, dem Arbeiter seinen Lohn in Naturalien auszuzahlen.ODER EINEN WECHSLER, SO ÜBERTRITT ER SIE NICHT23 Da der Arbeitslohn sich nicht mehr in seinem Besitze befindet.. DER LOHNARBEITER KANN INNERHALB DER FRIST24 Während welcher seine Zahlung fällig ist; cf. supra Fol. 110b.SCHWÖREN25 Wenn der Arbeitgeber behauptet, er habe ihn bereits bezahlt.UND ZAHLUNG ERHALTEN; IST DIE FRIST VORÜBER, SO KANN ER NICHT MEHR SCHWÖREN UND ZAHLUNG ERHALTEN; WENN ABER ZEUGEN VORHANDEN SIND, DASS ER IHN (INNERHALB DER FRIST) GEMAHNT26 Und keine Zahlung erhalten. Die eingeklammerten Worte fehlen in Handschriften u. anderen Texten u. sind nach der weiter folgenden Auslegung des T. (Fol. 113a) zu streichen.HAT, SO KANN ER SCHWÖREN UND ZAHLUNG ERHALTEN. BEI EINEM BEISASSPROSELYTEN HAT GELTUNG: am selben Tage sollst du ihm seinen Lohn geben, NICHT ABER: du sollst den Lohn eines Mietlings nicht bei dir bis zum Morgen übernachten lassen.",
+ "WENN JEMAND SEINEM NÄCHSTEN GELD GELIEHEN HAT, SO DARF ER IHN NUR DURCH DAS GERICHT PFÄNDEN. ER DARF NICHT IN SEIN HAUS GEHEN, UM DAS PFAND ZU HOLEN, DENN ES HEISST:27 Dt. 24,11.draußen sollst du warten. HAT ER ZWEI GERÄTE28 Und die Schuld dem Werte beider entspricht., SO NEHME ER IHM DAS EINE UND LASSE IHM DAS ANDERE; ER GEBE IHM NACHTS DAS POLSTER UND AM TAGE DEN PFLUG ZURÜCK. STIRBT ER, SO BRAUCHT MAN DAS PFAND SEINEN ERBEN NIGHT ZURÜCKZUGEBEN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, AUCH IHM SELBER BRAUCHE ER ES NUR DREISSIG TAGE ZURÜCKZUGEBEN, NACH DREISSIG TAGEN VERKAUFE ER ES VOR GERICHT. EINE WITWE DARF MAN, EINERLEI OB SIE ARM ODER REICH IST, NICHT PFÄNDEN, DENN ES HEISST:29 Dt. 24,17.du sollst das Gewand einer Witwe nicht pfänden. WER EINE MÜHLE PFÄNDET, BEGEHT EIN VERBOT UND IST WEGEN ZWEIER GERÄTE SCHULDIG, DENN ES HEISST:30 Dt. 24,6.man soll nicht einen Mühlstein und einen Mahlstein pfänden. UND DIES GILT NICHT NUR VON MÜHLSTEIN UND MAHLSTEIN, SONDERN VON JEDER SACHE, MIT DER LEBENSMITTEL BEREITET WERDEN, DENN ES HEISST:31 Dt. 24,6.denn man pfändet das Leben."
+ ],
+ [
+ "WENN EIN HAUS UND EIN SÖLLER, DIE ZWEIEN GEHÖREN1 Einem das Erdgeschoß u. dem anderen der Söller., EINGESTÜRZT SIND, SO TEILEN SIE2 Nach Verhältnis, wenn der Söller kleiner war. DAS HOLZ, DIE STEINE UND DEN SCHUTT; AUCH ERWÄGE MAN, WELCHE STEINE3 Wenn die Steine zum Teil zerbrochen u. zum Teil ganz geblieben sind. ZUM ZERBRECHEN GEEIGNET SIND4 Ist das Haus in sich zusammengestürzt, durch den Druck, so sind wahrscheinl. die oberen ganz geblieben.. WENN EINER VON IHNEN MANCHE SEINER STEINE ERKENNT5 Unter den unbeschädigten., SO NEHME ER SIE, UND SIE WERDEN IHM ANGERECHNET.",
+ "WENN VON EINEM HAUSE UND EINEM SÖLLER DER SÖLLER6 Die Decke zwischen der oberen u. der unteren Wohnung.EINBRICHT UND DER EIGENTÜMER DES HAUSES7 Hier wird von dem Falle gesprochen, wenn der andere bei ihm zur Miete wohnt.IHN NICHT AUSBESSERN WILL, SO KANN DER EIGENTÜMER DES SÖLLERS HINABSTEIGEN UND UNTEN WOHNEN, BIS JENER IHM DEN SÖLLER HERSTELLT. R. JOSE SAGT, DER UNTERE GEBE DAS GEBÄLK UND DER OBERE DEN ESTRICH.",
+ "WENN EIN HAUS UND EIN SÖLLER, DIE ZWEIEN GEHÖREN, EINGESTÜRZT SIND UND DER EIGENTÜMER DES SÖLLERS DEN EIGENTÜMER DES HAUSES ZU BAUEN8 Die unteren Wände u. die Decke, damit er seinen Söller bauen könne.AUFFORDERT UND DIESER NICHT BAUEN WILL, SO KANN DER EIGENTÜMER DES SÖLLERS DAS HAUS AUFBAUEN UND IN DIESEM WOHNEN, BIS JENER IHM SEINE AUSLAGEN ERSETZT9 Erst dann braucht er seinen Söller zu bauen.. R. JEHUDA SAGTE: DIESER WOHNT JA DANN IM HAUSE SEINES NÄCHSTEN UND SOLLTE IHM MIETE10 Da er von des anderen Wohnung einen Nutzen hat, denn er erspart das Bauen des Söllers.ZAHLEN! VIELMEHR MUSS DER EIGENTÜMER DES SÖLLERS AUCH DIE OBERE WOHNUNG ÜBERDACHEN11 Dh. ihn vollständig herstellen., WOHNE ABER SOLANGE IM HAUSE12 Im Erdgeschosse; in diesem Falle hat er keinen Nutzen mehr, denn er könnte ebensogut in seinem Söller wohnen., BIS JENER IHM SEINE AUSLAGEN ERSETZT.",
+ "EBENSO AUCH, WENN EINE ÖLMÜHLE IN EINEM FELSEN GEBAUT IST UND ÜBER DIESER EIN GARTEN SICH BEFINDET UND ER13 Der Gartenboden, der das Dach der Ölmühle bildet.EINBRICHT; DER EIGENTÜMER DES GARTENS DARF DANN HINABSTEIGEN UND UNTEN SÄEN, BIS JENER ÜBER SEINER MÜHLE WÖLBUNGEN14 Über welche der Eigentümer dann Erde schütten u. säen kann.GEMACHT HAT. WENN EINE WAND ODER EIN BAUM AUF ÖFFENTLICHES GEBIET GEFALLEN IST UND SCHADEN ANGERICHTET HAT, SO IST DER EIGENTÜMER ERSATZFREI; WENN MAN IHM EINE FRIST GESETZT HAT, DEN BAUM ZU FÄLLEN ODER DIE WAND NIEDERZUREISSEN, UND SIE INNERHALB DIESER FRIST UMGEFALLEN SIND, SO IST DER EIGENTÜMER ERSATZFREI; WENN ABER NACH DER FRIST, SO IST ER ERSATZPFLICHTIG.",
+ "WENN DIE WAND DES EINEN, DIE AM GARTEN EINES ANDEREN GESTANDEN HAT, EINGESTÜRZT15 In den Garten des anderen, u. dieser ihn auffordert, sie fortzuschaffen.IST, UND JENER ZU IHM SAGT: SIE SEI DEIN, SO HÖRE MAN NICHT16 Wenn der Eigentümer des Gartens die Aneignung der eingestürzten Wand nicht wünscht, so muß der andere sie fortschaffen.AUF IHN. WENN ER ABER DAMIT EINVERSTANDEN WAR UND JENER NACHHER ZU IHM SAGT: DA HAST DU DEINE AUSLAGEN17 Für die Fortschaffung.UND ICH WILL MEINES HABEN. SO HÖRE MAN NICHT AUF IHN. WENN JEMAND ZU EINEM LÖHNER, DEN ER ZUR ARBEIT BEI STROH UND STOPPELN GEMIETET HAT, DER NUN VON IHM SEINEN LOHN FORDERT, SAGT: NIMM FÜR DEINEN LOHN DAS, WOBEI DU GEARBEITET HAST, SO HÖRE MAN NICHT AUF IHN. WENN ER ABER DAMIT EINVERSTANDEN WAR UND JENER SPÄTER ZU IHM SAGT: DA HAST DU DEINEN LOHN UND ICH WILL MEINES HABEN, SO HÖRE MAN NICHT AUF IHN. WENN JEMAND DÜNGER AUF ÖFFENTLICHES GEBIET18 Von wo aus es aufs Feld gebracht wird.HINAUSBRINGT, SO MUSS, SOBALD DER EINE IHN HINAUSGEBRACHT, DER ANDERE19 Er darf nicht auf öffentlichem Gebiete liegen bleiben.DAMIT DÜNGEN. MAN DARF AUF ÖFFENTLICHEM GEBIETE KEINEN LEHM WEICHEN NOCH ZIEGEL BEREITEN; WOHL ABER DARF MAN AUF ÖFFENTLICHEM GEBIETE LEHM20 Um ihn sofort zum Bauen zu verwenden.KNETEN JEDOCH REINE ZIEGEL. WENN MAN AUF ÖFFENTLICHEM GEBIETE BAUT, SO MUSS, SOBALD DER EINE DIE STEINE GEBRACHT HAT, DER ANDERE SIE EINBAUEN; RICHTET ER SCHADEN AN, SO MUSS ER DEN SCHADEN ERSETZEN. R. ŠIMO͑N B. GAMLIÉL SAGT, MAN DÜRFE SEINE ARBEIT DREISSIG TAGE VORHER VORBEREITEN21 Auf öffentlichem Gebiete; wenn dadurch Schaden angerichtet worden ist, so ist man ersatzfrei..",
+ "WENN ZWISCHEN ZWEI GÄRTEN, EINER ÜBER DEM ANDEREN, KRAUT SICH BEFINDET, SO GEHÖRT ES, WIE R. MEÍR SAGT, ZUM OBEREN, UND WIE R. JEHUDA SAGT, ZUM UNTEREN. R. MEÍR SPRACH: WENN DER OBERE SEINE ERDE FORTNEHMEN WOLLTE, SO GÄBE ES DA KEIN KRAUT. R. JEHUDA ENTGEGNETE: WENN DER UNTERE SEINEN GARTEN ÜBERSCHÜTTEN WOLLTE, SO GÄBE ES DA KEIN KRAUT. DA SPRACH R. MEÍR: DA NUN BEIDE EINANDER HINDERN KÖNNEN, SO SEHE MAN, WOHER DAS KRAUT SEINE NAHRUNG ZIEHT. R. ŠIMO͑N SAGT, SOWEIT DER OBERE DIE HAND AUSSTRECKEN UND ERFASSEN KANN, GEHÖRE IHM, UND DAS ÜBRIGE GEHÖRE DEM UNTEREN."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..609165c31d718dda52af69bb6daf2e3c437d6185
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json
@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Metzia",
+ "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein",
+ "versionTitle": "The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "license": "CC-BY",
+ "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source",
+ "versionTitleInHebrew": "המשנה עם פירושי רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, רבי שרגא זילברשטיין",
+ "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא מציעא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "\tTwo are holding a garment. The first says: \"I found it\"; the second: \"I found it.\" [The Gemara construes the instance in our Mishnah as one where the first was holding the strands on one side of the garment, and the second, the strands on the other side. But if they were holding onto the garment itself, the first takes as far as his hand reaches, and the second, as far as his hand reaches. And the rest, they divide equally with an oath.] The first says: \"It is all mine\"; the second: \"It is all mine.\" [i.e., I bought it, and the seller sold it to me and not to you. And the seller sold it to one of them and took the money from both of them; one, by consent, and the other, against his will. And he does not know which is which. For if he did know and he said: \"I sold it to this one,\" one witness would obtain, in which instance a Torah oath would be imposed upon the other to refute the witness. Now that he does not know, both swear this oath specified in our Mishnah. By law, they should divide without an oath; but the sages ordained that neither of them takes anything without an oath, so that a man should not go and take hold of his neighbor's garment and say: \"It is mine!\" And it was necessary for the tanna to apprise us both of \"I found it\" — (an instance of) finding a lost object, and: \"It is all mine\" — (an instance of) buying and selling. For if only the first were taught, I would say that it is only in that case that the Torah imposed an oath, one being apt to rationalize to take a lost object unlawfully, viz.: \"My friend will lose nothing. I will go and seize it and divide it with him.\" But, in the instance of buying and selling, where if he did not need it, he would not pursue the seller to buy it, the one who comes to divide with him and give half the price causes him a loss unlawfully, without a rationalization — so that I might say (unless apprised otherwise) that the rabbis did not impose an oath upon him. And if we were apprised only of buying and selling, I would say that it is only in that instance that the rabbis imposed an oath, for in that instance he might say: \"My friend gave money and I, too, gave money. Now, that I need it for myself, I will take it, and let my friend go and buy another one.\" But in the instance of a lost object, where such (a rationalization) does not obtain, I might say not (i.e., that no oath is imposed.) We are, therefore, apprised otherwise.] The first swears that he has in it no less than a half, and the second swears that he has in it no less than a half, and they divide, [He does not swear that it is all his as per his original claim, for they will not give him all of it. And if he swears that half is his, in accordance with what he is given, he vitiates his original claim of \"It is all mine.\" Therefore, he swears that he has in it no less than a half, which implies: It is all mine, as I said in the beginning; and, according to you, who do not believe me for the whole, I take an oath that I have (possession) in it, and that I have in it no less than a half.] If the first says: \"It is all mine\"; and the second: \"Half of it is mine,\" the one who says \"It is all mine\" swears that he has no less than three quarters, and the one who says \"Half of it is mine\" swears that he has no less than one quarter. The first takes three quarters, and the second, one quarter.",
+ "\tIf both were riding on a beast [We are hereby apprised that riding acquires, even if he (the rider) does not lead, the beast not moving from its place], or if one were riding and the other leading [It is only when the rider moves his feet to make the animal go that the rider is equated with the leader; but if not, the leader acquires, and not the rider.], the first says: \"It is all mine,\" and the second says: \"It is all mine,\" the first swears that he has in it no less than a half, and the second swears that he has in it no less than a half, and they divide. When they concede, or when there are witnesses, they divide without an oath. [If they concede, or if witnesses come, even after it has been ruled that they are to divide with an oath, they divide without an oath.]",
+ "\tIf he were riding on a beast and saw a metziah (a lost object), and he said to his friend: \"Give it to me\" — If he (the friend) took it and said: \"I acquired it\" (for myself), he acquires it. [But if he the rider) said: \"Acquire it for me,\" the rider acquires it, and the other cannot say: \"I acquired it\" (for myself)]. If after he gave it to him he said: \"I acquired it first,\" he has said nothing. [For this one (the rider) who withdrew it from his hand, acquired it; and as long as it was in the hand of the one who picked it up, it was hefker (ownerless property)].",
+ "\tIf he saw a metziah and fell upon it and another came and took hold of it, the latter acquires it. [This is so only when the metziah was in the public domain, for a man's four cubits do not acquire for him in the public domain. Therefore, the one who takes hold of it acquires it. But in an alleyway, which is a path for one person, or at the sides of the public domain, where there is no press of people, one's four cubits acquire for him any metziah and object of hefker close to him in that space, and no one else is permitted to seize it — a rabbinical ordinance to prevent contention.] If he saw them (men) running after a metziah, after a \"broken\" deer, [which cannot run and is \"guarded\" in the field if others do not take it, and which is like a metziah], and after birds which cannot fly, and he said: \"My field has acquired (them) for me,\" it acquires (them) for him. [This, provided that he is standing at the side of his field and can run after them and reach them before they leave the field.] If a deer were running normally or birds flying, and he said: \"My field has acquired (them) for me,\" he has said nothing.",
+ "\tThe metziah of one's minor son and daughter (belong to him) [Whoever is dependent upon his father's \"table,\" even if he is an adult is considered a minor, and his metziah belongs to his father to prevent eivah (\"hatred\"). And the metziah of a daughter, whether a minor or a na'arah (a maiden), belongs to her father, the Torah having accorded all the gains of her maidenhood to her father.], the metziah of his Canaanite bondsman and bondswoman (belong to him), [their bodies belonging to him, viz. (Leviticus 25:46): \"And you shall hold them as an inheritance.\"], and the metziah of his wife belongs to him [(a rabbinical ordinance to prevent eivah)]. The metziah of his Hebrew bondsman and bondswoman, the metziah of his divorcée, though he has not given her her kethubah, belongs to them.",
+ "\tIf one found bills of indebtedness, if they contain a lien on land [in insurance of payment of the debt], he does not return them (to the creditor), for beth-din exact payment from them (sold properties). [We fear \"payment and plotting,\" i.e., it may be that it is a paid bill which fell from the lender and that his admitting: \"I did not pay\" is part of a plot between him and the creditor to extract payment from the sold properties which were bought from the debtor without security (against seizure), those properties to be divided between them.] If they do not contain a lien on land, he returns it (to the creditor), for (in that instance) beth-din do not exact payment from them. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: In both instances he does not return it, for beth-din exact payment from them. [They exact payment even where the bill does not contain a lien on land, for this (omission of the lien) is an error of the scribe, and we fear \"payment and plotting.\" The halachah is in accordance with the sages, And it is only in a bill where a lien is not mentioned that the sages consider it an error of the scribe and collection is made from the bound property as if the lien were written therein. But if he stated explicitly in the bill that he does not take such a lien upon himself, the sages concede that he returns it (to the creditor), for in such an instance there is no apprehension of plotting.]",
+ "\tIf one found gittin (writs of divorce) of women, writs of manumission, d'yatiki [death-bed wills, (acronymic for) \"da tehei lemeikam velihyoth\" (\"This stands to be fulfilled and to be.\")], bequests, or receipts [of creditor to debtor testifying to payment of debt], he does not return them. For I say (i.e., I suspect) that they were written and he (the writer) decided against giving them.",
+ "\tIf one found writs of assessment, [beth-din having assessed the property of the debtor for the creditor towards payment of the debt], writs of sustenance, [wherein the husband takes it upon himself to feed his wife's daughter. Another interpretation: (writs wherein it is stated that land of the husband is to be sold to feed his wife and daughters], writs of refusal, [wherein it is written: \"Before us this and this woman refused (to remain married to) this and this man,\" this, in an instance of an (orphaned) minor whose mother and brothers married her off, in which instance she does not require a get], writs of selection, [one (litigant) choosing one (judge) and the other choosing one, to judge their case], and (any writ of) enactment by beth-din, he returns them (to the ones for whom they were written). If he found (bills) in a chafisah [a small leather bag], or in a dluskema [a leather bag where the elderly keep their necessaries so as not to have to search for them], or a pack of bills [three or more, folded together], or a bundle of bills [lying one atop the other, length to length], he returns them, [this being a thing that has a siman (an identifying sign). For the receptacle is a siman, the owner saying: \"In such and such a receptacle did I place them.\" Likewise, \"pack\" and \"bundle\" are a siman.] And how many are a \"bundle\" of bills? Three tied together. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: If one borrowed from three, they are returned to the debtor. [If the three bills are of one debtor, who borrowed from three different men, the finder returns them to the debtor, the bills definitely having fallen from him. For if they had fallen from them (the creditors), who would have gathered them together in one place? And this, only with bills that have been certified in beth-din. But with bills that have not been certified, we fear that the three creditors might have taken them to the scribe of beth-din to have them certified and they fell from the hand of the scribe. But it is not to be feared that they fell from the scribe's hand after he certified them, for men do not leave certified bills in the hand of the scribe.] If three borrowed from one, he returns it to the creditor, [it being obvious that they fell from him. And if they were all written by the hand of one scribe, we fear that they might have fallen from the hand of the scribe and that the loan had never been made, so that they are not returned.] If he found a bill among his bills, and he does not know the nature of it [i.e., whether the debtor deposited it with him or the creditor, or whether it is partially paid and it was given to him to act as an intermediary], it remains [in his hand without being returned to either] until Eliyahu arrives. If he finds among them (his bills) a receipt [written for one of his bills], he does what is (stated) in the receipt, [and the bill is assumed to have been paid. And even though this receipt should have been in the hand of the debtor and not in that of the creditor, we assume that the debtor trusted the creditor and said: \"Give it to me tomorrow,\" and he forgot. (This, when the creditor found the bill for which the receipt was written among torn-up bills, though it itself is not torn up)]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tWhich metzioth are his (the finder's) and which must he call out? These metzioth are his: If he found scattered fruits [(It may be assumed that the owner \"despaired\" of them, and they are hefker)], scattered money [(Since it has no distinct siman, the owner \"despairs\" of it, and it is hefker, and so with all of these)], small sheaves in the public domain, [where all tread upon them, so that even if it had a siman it is obscured], rounds of figs, loaves of a baker, [which have no siman, all of them being alike; but home-made loaves do have a siman.], strings of fish, pieces of meat, wool shearings that come from their provinces, [to exclude those that come from the tradesman's house, as taught below], bundles of flax, tongues of wool [dyed] purple — these are his. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: Whatever has a shinui (a distinguishing difference) must be called out. How so? If he found a round [of figs] and in it a shard; a loaf, and in it money. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: All anpuria vessels need not be called out. [(\"anpuria\":) new vessels, which are not familiar to the eye, so that the owner cannot identify them as his own by visual recognition. (For sometimes a lost object is returned on the basis of such recognition, as in the instance of a Torah scholar, who does not prevaricate.) And these vessels, about which it is known that the owner cannot identify them by visual recognition, need not be returned. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Elazar. When is this so? When they are found individually. But if they are found in twos, they must be called out, for the number is a siman. And if one finds a metziah in a broad thoroughfare in a city, where the majority are gentiles, even something with a siman, he need not call it out. And in a city with a majority of Jews, he must call it out.]",
+ "\tAnd these must be called out: If he found fruits in a vessel, [which has a siman], or a vessel as it is [i.e., empty], money in a pouch, or a pouch as it is, piled fruits [The number or the place is a siman], piled money, three coins [or more], one atop the other, [The finder calls out: \"I have found coins,\" and the loser comes and says: \"There were such and such a number and they were lying one atop the other.\"], small sheaves in a private domain, home-made loaves, wool shearings taken from the tradesman's house, pitchers of wine, and pitchers of oil — these must be called out.",
+ "\tIf he found behind a gappah [a wall-filling of wood or reeds] or behind a fence [of stones], tied fledglings, [tied by their wings. Since all men tie them thus, this is not a siman.], or in paths in the fields, he should not touch them. [For we assume that they were secreted there, and if they are taken, the owners will not have a siman. Therefore, they should be left there until the owners come and take them.] If he found a vessel in the rubbish heap, if it is covered, he should not touch it, [this not being a lost object about which he is exhorted (Deuteronomy 22:3): \"You shall not be able to ignore it,\" for it is guarded.] If it is not covered, he takes it and calls it out. If he found it in a heap or in an old wall, it is his. [For he can tell the owner of the heap or of the wall that it belonged to the Emorites driven out by our ancestors. This, if it be extremely mouldy, indication of its having lain there for a very long time.] If he found it in a new wall — in the outer half, it is his; in the inner half, it is the (home) owner's. [In one of the holes of a wall close to the public domain, if he found it from half the thickness of the wall facing out, it is his. For we say that one of the men in the public domain placed it there and forgot it. And the mould upon it indicates its having been there a long time, so that the owner must certainly have despaired of it. This, only in the instance of a tongue of gold, a piece of silver, and the like. But if it were a vessel, and in it money — if the mouth of the vessel faces outwards, it is his; if inwards, it is the (home) owner's. If he rented it to others, even (if he found it) inside the house, it is his, [ it not being known whose it is, and the owner's having despaired.]",
+ "\tIf he found (money) in a shop, it is his. [This, where there is no siman, the one who lost it despairing of it, the shop being frequented by many people.] Between the (shopkeeper's) chest and the shopkeeper, it is the shopkeeper's. [For the shopkeeper sits before it and always takes from it and places before it and sells, and the money that he receives he places therein, so that it must have fallen from the shopkeeper's hand.] Before the money changer, it is his (the one who finds it). [For we say that it must have fallen from those who came to change money. For the table intervenes between the money changer and the money that was found; and if it were his, it should have been found between him and the chair on which the table is mounted.] Between the chair and the money changer, it is the money changer's. If one buys fruits from his neighbor, or if his neighbor sends him fruits and he finds money in it, it is his. [This, when his neighbor is a merchant, who buys this produce or these fruits from many people, so that it is not known whose it is. And since there is no siman, the owner despairs. But if the one who sold the fruits picked them himself from his own land, the money is obviously his and must be returned to him.] If it (the money) were tied, he takes it and calls it out, [the tie or the amount being a siman.]",
+ "\tA garment, too, was subsumed in all these, [i.e., in (Deuteronomy 22:3): \"every lost object of your brother.\"] Why was it singled out for special mention? [(Ibid.): \"And thus shall you do with his garment\"] To serve as a paradigm, viz.: Just as a garment is characterized by possessing simanim and claimants, so, all things that possess simanim and claimants must be called out. [A garment, in general, has a siman, and all garments have owners who claim them, their having been made by men and not coming from hefker. (\"so, all things that have claimants\":) to exclude something despaired of. \"Yeush\" (\"despair\") — hearing one say: \"Woe is me for my loss!\"]",
+ "\tAnd until when must he call out? Until its neighbors know (about it) [the neighbors of the place where the lost object was found, it possibly being theirs.] These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: Three festivals. And after the last festival, seven days, so that he can go to his house three, and return three, and call out one day. [(\"so that he can go to his house three days\":) after hearing it called out so that he can ascertain whether he has lost anything. And if he sees that he did lose something, he returns three, and calls out one day: \"I have lost it, and these are its simanim.\" The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah. And from the time of the destruction of the Temple, they ordained that it be called out in the houses of prayer and the houses of study. And with the increase of the \"ravishers,\" who say: \"All lost objects (that are found) go to the king,\" they ordained that he inform his neighbors and acquaintances, and this suffices.]",
+ "\tIf he named the lost object but not its simanim, it should not be returned to him. And if he is (known as) a deceiver, even if he does give its simanim, it should not be returned to him, it being written (Deuteronomy 22:2): \"until you seek out your brother\" — until you seek out your brother to determine whether or not he is a deceiver. Whatever (animal) works and eats [i.e., If the lost animal is one whose work is worth the cost of its food, such as an ox or an ass], let it work and eat [and let the finder not sell it. For everyone prefers his own beast, with which he is familiar and which he has trained to its will. And he (the finder) need not care for it forever, but for a hen and a large beast, twelve months; for grazing calves and foals (i.e., those which are not raised for fattening), and, likewise, for kids and lambs, three months. For fattening calves, thirty days; for small ganders and roosters, thirty days; for large ones, which eat a lot, three days. From that point on, he takes them for himself at their estimated cost, or sells them to others and holds onto the money.]; whatever does not work and eat, let it be sold, it being written (Ibid.): \"Then you shall return it to him\" — See how to return it to him. What is to be done with the money? R. Tarfon says: He may use it. Therefore, if it is lost, he must make restoration. [Since the rabbis permitted him to use it, even if he does not use it, it is as if he did, and he must make restoration. R. Akiva says: He may not use it. Therefore, if it is lost, he need not make restoration. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Tarfon vis-à-vis the money received for the sale of the lost object; but found money itself, as when he finds money in a pouch, or three coins one atop the other, may not be used at all.]",
+ "\tIf one found books, he reads in them once in thirty days, [for they become mouldy if they remain unopened. (All of their books were in the form of scrolls)]. And if he does not know how to read, he rolls them [from beginning to end, so that air enter.] But he should not learn in them ab initio [what he never learned before, for (in that instance) he must leave them (exposed) before him.] And another should not read with him. [For one pulls (the scroll) to him, and the other, to him, and it is torn.] If he found a garment, he shakes it out once every thirty days, and he spreads it out for its need [i.e., to air it out so that it not become moth-eaten.], but not for his honor. (If he found) vessels of silver or copper, he uses them for their need, [for they become mouldy in the ground, where he must keep them, this being their \"guarding.\" Therefore, he uses them from time to time], but not [so long as] to wear them out. (If he found) vessels of gold or glass, he may not touch them until Eliyahu comes. [Gold does not mould in the ground, and glass, too (does not). What is more, it is easily broken.] (If he found) a sack or a box, or anything else that he does not customarily carry, [i.e., something demeaning to him], he should not take it, [it being written (Deuteronomy 22:1): \"And you shall ignore them\" — Sometimes you are to ignore them, as in the instance of an elder whose dignity it does not befit.]",
+ "\tWhat is an aveidah ( a lost object)? [where it is evident that the owner is unaware if its whereabouts.] If he found an ass or a cow grazing on the road, this is not an aveidah [and he is not obliged to return it, it having been left there knowingly.] (If he found) an ass and its gear overturned, a cow running between the vineyards, [injuring its legs thereby], this is an aveidah. If he returned it and it ran away; returned it, and it ran away — even four or five times — he must keep on returning it, it being written (Deuteronomy 22:1): \"Return shall you return them.\" [The Torah added many \"returnings.\"] If he lost a sela (of working time in returning the aveidah), he may not tell him (the owner): \"Give me a sela,\" [for the other can tell him: \"Had you done your own work, you would have exerted yourself more. Take, then, the amount of your exertion.\"], but he gives him his wage as an idle worker, [i.e., the reduction in pay one would take to be idle from his regular, more difficult work, in order to do this work (of returning the aveidah)]. If there is a beth-din there, he makes a condition before beth-din. [If he does not wish to idle himself from his work, his wage being high, what does he do? If there are three men there (a beth-din), he makes a condition before them, viz.: \"See, I am earning this and this amount. I do not wish to idle myself from my job and earn less. If you agree to my receiving my regular wage, I shall undertake to return this aveidah.\"] If there is no beth-din there, before whom shall he make a condition? His (claim) takes precedence [and he bypasses the aveidah].",
+ "\tIf he found it in the stall, [ even if it is unguarded there, as when the stall is unlocked ], he need not return it. (If he found it) in the public domain, he is obliged to do so. And if it were in the graveyard, [and he were a Cohein], he may not make himself unclean for it. [For returning an aveidah is a positive commandment, viz. (Deuteronomy 22:1): \"Return shall you return them to your brother,\" and the uncleanliness of a Cohein (involves transgression of) the positive commandment of (Leviticus 21:6): \"Holy shall you be,\" and the negative commandment of (Ibid. 1): \"For a dead body he shall not become unclean among his people.\" And a positive commandment does not override a negative and a positive commandment. If his father said to him: \"Become unclean\" (to return an aveidah), or if he said to him: \"Do not return it\" [and the aveidah were in a place where it is a mitzvah to return it], he should not heed him, it being written (Ibid. 19:3): \"A man, his mother and his father you shall fear, and my Sabbaths you shall keep\": If your father tells you to desecrate the Sabbath, do not heed him. The same is true for all of the mitzvoth.] If he unloaded and loaded (a beast), unloaded and loaded, even four or five times, he is liable (to continue doing so), it being written (Exodus 23:5): \"Help shall you help.\" If he (the owner of the ass) went and sat down (doing nothing), telling him: \"Since it is your mitzvah, if you want to unload, unload,\" he is exempt, it being written (Ibid.): \"with him.\" But if he (the owner) were old or sick, he is obligated (to perform the mitzvah by himself.) It is a mitzvah of the Torah to unload [gratis], but not to load [gratis, but for pay]. R. Shimon says: Also to load [gratis. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.] R. Yossi Haglili says: If it were bearing more than its (bearable) burden, he is not obligated, it being written (Ibid.): \"under its burden\" — a burden that it can bear. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.]",
+ "\tHis aveidah or the aveidah of his father — his lost object takes precedence, [it being written (Deuteronomy 15:4): \"But there shall not be in you a poor man\" — Take heed that you not be a poor man.\"] His aveidah and the aveidah of his teacher — his aveidah takes precedence. His father's aveidah and the aveidah of his teacher — his teacher's takes precedence [(This, if he be his prime teacher, from whom he learned the greater part of his wisdom. Likewise, wherever \"teacher\" is mentioned in our Mishnah as taking precedence to \"father,\" it is his prime teacher that is meant.)], for his father brought him to this world, but his teacher, who taught him wisdom, brings him to life in the world to come. And if his father were a sage, his father's takes precedence. If his father and his teacher were carrying burdens, he sets down his teacher's first, and then, his father's. If his father and his teacher were taken captive, he redeems his teacher first, and then, his father. And if his father were a sage, he redeems his father, and then, this teacher."
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tIf one deposited with his neighbor a beast or vessels, and they were stolen or lost, and he (the neighbor) paid, not wishing to swear [the oath of the watchers (Shemoth 22:10), whereby he could have exempted himself, if he had sworn that he had not been derelict and had not \"sent forth his hand\" against it], for they said that one who watches gratis (shomer chinam) swears and is exempt — If the thief were found, he pays kefel. If he slaughtered and sold it, he pays four and five. To whom does he pay? To the one it (the animal) was deposited with. [For since he paid, he acquired all of its payments. And even if he did not pay, but only said in beth-din: \"I shall pay,\" he acquires all of its payments, whether kefel or four and five.] If he swore, not wishing to pay, if the thief were found, he pays kefel. If he slaughtered and sold it, he pays four and five. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposit.",
+ "\tIf one hired a cow from his neighbor and lent it to another [with the owner's permission (for we rule that one watcher who gives to another without permission is liable)], and it died normally, the hirer swears [to the owner] that it died normally, [and he is exempt from payment, a hirer being exempt (from payment) for accidents (like death)], and the borrower, [who is liable for accidents] pays the hirer. R. Yossi said: If so, he (the hirer) \"does business\" with his neighbor's cow! Rather (payment for) the cow is returned to the owner. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi.]",
+ "\tIf he said to two (men): \"I stole a maneh from one of you, and I do not know which one,\" or (if he said:) \"The father of one of you deposited a maneh with me, and I do not know which,\" he gives one a maneh and the other a maneh, having admitted this of himself. [(\"If he said to two\":) and they claim nothing, but he comes to satisfy the \"claims of Heaven,\" he gives each one a maneh. But if two make a claim upon him, and he admits that he stole from one of them, each one of them swears that he stole from him, and he gives a maneh to each one, the sages penalizing him for transgressing the interdict against theft. Likewise, if two made a claim against someone, each one saying: \"My father deposited a maneh with you,\" and he saying: \"The father of one of you did so, but I do not know which,\" each one of them swears that his father deposited a maneh with him, and he gives each one a maneh, being guilty of dereliction. For he should have taken care to remember who deposited it with him.]",
+ "\tIf two deposited with him, one a hundred; the other, two hundred [as when they deposited it at the same time, one right before the other] — the first says: \"The two hundred is mine\"; the second: \"The two hundred is mine,\" he gives the first a hundred and the second a hundred, and the rest is set aside until Eliyahu comes. [For he can tell them: \"You were not particular about each other, that the other might claim the two hundred — I, too, did not have to be particular to know who gave me the two hundred.\" So that it is as if they placed all three hundred in a bundle before him, it not devolving upon him to learn what in it belonged to the one, and what to the other.] R. Yossi said: \"If so, what did the deceiver lose!\" [He never will admit the truth.] Rather, the whole is set aside until Eliyahu comes.",
+ "\tSimilarly, two vessels, one worth a hundred; the other, a thousand, one man saying: \"The dearer is mine\"; the other: \"The dearer is mine\" — the smaller is given to one of them, and from the larger, the value of the smaller is given to the other, and the rest is set aside until Eliyahu comes. [This is required for the rabbis, to teach us: \"Not only here, but also here.\", i.e., Not only in (the above instance of) one hundred and two hundred, where there is no need to break a vessel, do the rabbis say that each is given one hundred, but even in an instance of two vessels, where a loss is involved, it being necessary to break the large vessel in order to give from it the value of the smaller — so that when Eliyahu comes, the owner of the large vessel will be found to have lost, his vessel having been broken — so that it might be thought that in such an instance the rabbis would concur with R. Yossi that all is to be set aside until Eliyahu comes — we are, therefore, apprised otherwise. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] R. Yossi says: If so, what did the deceiver lose! Rather, all is to be set aside until Eliyahu comes.",
+ "\tIf one deposits fruits with his neighbor, even if they undergo loss [because of mice or decay], he may not touch them [to sell them. For \"a man prefers one measure of his own to nine measures of his neighbor.\" His measure is beloved by him because he worked for it, more (beloved) than nine measures of others that he would receive for selling it. The rabbis say: \"He may not touch them,\" only if they undergo the normal loss indicated in our Mishnah (below): for wheat and rice, nine half-kavin to a kor, etc. But if they undergo more than the normal loss, the sages concede to R. Shimon b. Gamliel that he sells them through beth-din. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] R. Gamliel says: He sells them before beth-din, for he is like one returning a lost object to its owner.",
+ "\tIf one deposited fruits with his neighbor [and the latter mixed them up with his fruits and ate of them without knowing how much, when he comes to return them,] he deducts for [the normal] loss: for wheat and rice, nine half-kavin to a kor. [The kor is thirty sa'ah; the sa'ah is six kavin.] For barley and millet, nine kavin to a kor. For spelt and flax seed, three sa'ah to a kor, all according to the amount [i.e., the same for each kor], all according to the time [that he left them with him. For each year he deducts that amount.] R. Yochanan b. Nuri said: What difference does it make to the mice? Do they not eat [the same amount] from a large measure as from a small one? [Therefore,] he deducts the loss only for one kor, [i.e., nine half-kavin for a year, whether for one kor or for ten.] R. Yehudah says: If it were a large amount [i.e., if he deposited with him a large amount, ten korim and above], he does not deduct for loss, for there is a surplus. [For in the time of threshing, when the grain is deposited, it is dry; and in the rainy season, when it is returned, it is swollen, so that too much is not lost because of the mice, the mice not eating that much from ten korim. Therefore, the swelling compensates for the eating of the mice. The halachah is neither in accordance with R. Yehudah nor with R. Yochanan b. Nuri. All of these measurements obtain in Eretz Yisrael and in the days of the tannaim. But in other lands and in these times, all is in accordance with the normal loss of seeds in those lands and times.]",
+ "\tHe deducts a sixth for wine [if he deposited wine with him, and it got mixed up with his wine. (The vessels absorb a sixth.)] R. Yehudah says: A fifth. [For the earth from which the vessels were made in the locale of R. Yehudah absorbed a fifth; all according to the locale.] He deducts three logs of oil to a hundred — a log and a half for lees; a log and a half for absorption. If it were refined oil, he does not deduct for lees. If they were old vessels, he does not deduct for absorption. R. Yehudah says: Also if one sells refined oil to his neighbor all the days of the year, he (the buyer) accepts (a deduction of) one and a half to a hundred for lees. [Just as they stipulated (a deduction for) lees for the depositor, so they stipulated it for the seller, viz.: If one sells oil to his neighbor and gives him from his jugs refined oil which he constantly uses, the buyer accepts a deduction of a log and a half to each hundred for lees. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
+ "\tIf one deposited a jug with his neighbor and the owner did not designate a place for it [in the house of the watcher, saying: \"Lend me this corner\"], and he (the watcher) moved it and it were broken — If it were broken (by falling) from his hand: If (he moved it) for his need, [i.e., to use it], he is liable; for its need, [it being in a place where it was likely to be broken], he is not liable. If it were broken after he put it down, whether for his need or for its need, he is not liable. [If after using it he put it in a guarded place, whether he had moved it in the beginning for his need or for its need, he is not liable. For we say that when he returns it (to its place), it is in the domain of the owner as before, and his status is that of an unpaid watcher, who is not liable for accidents, even though he did not apprise the owner, saying: \"I took it and returned it.\" The first part of the Mishnah is in accordance with R. Yishmael, who says that if one steals a lamb from the flock and returns it to its place, he is not liable, it not being necessary to apprise the owner. As to \"and the owner does not designate a place for it,\" this is a \"Not only\" construction, i.e.: Not only when the owner designates a place for it, and he returns it to its designated place after using it for his need is he not liable even if he did not apprise the owner, having returned it to its designated place — but even when the owner does not designate a place for it, there being no special place for it, if he returns it he is not liable, having returned it to a guarded place, it not being necessary to apprise the owner.] If the owner designated a place for it, and he moved it and it were broken, whether from his hand or after having put it down — If for his need, he is liable; if for its need, he is not liable. [This latter part (of the Mishnah) is in accordance with R. Akiva, who says that if one steals a lamb from the flock and returns it to its place and it met with mishap, he is always liable unless he had apprised the owner that he had stolen and returned it. The same applies after he had used it for his need and become a thief in respect to it — Even if he puts it down in a guarded place, he is liable. As to its being stated in this latter part: \"If the owner designates a place for it,\" this is a \"Not only\" construction, i.e.: Not only when he does not designate a place is he liable when he puts it down after using it for his need, not having put it down in a place designated for it; but even when he designates a place and he puts it down again in that place, he is liable, it being necessary to apprise the owner. The first part (of the Mishnah) is in accordance with R. Yishmael, and the second part, with R. Akiva. Thus is it construed in the Gemara.]",
+ "\tIf one deposited money with his neighbor and he bound it [in his scarf] and slung it over his shoulder, [even though this is bona fide guarding, he is liable. For if one takes money deposited with him from place to place, the only valid guarding is in his hand, it being written (Deuteronomy 14:25): \"And you shall bind the money in your hand\" — Though it is bound, it must be in your hand. And in a house, it is guarded only in the ground. And in a wall, in the handbreadth close to the ceiling or the handbreadth close to the ground, thieves not being likely to search there. If he guarded them in any other way, he is considered derelict, and he is liable — unless he stipulated ab initio with the depositor that he accepts it only on condition that he not be liable for all of these \"guardings.\"]; or if he gave it to his minor son or daughter, and \"closed up\" inadequately before them, he is liable, for he did not watch in the manner of the watchers. But if he watched in the manner of the watchers, he is not liable. [But if he gave it to grown ones, they swear that they guarded it in the manner of the watchers and they are not liable. And we do not say in such an instance that a watcher who gives to a watcher is liable. For it is customary for one to deposit with his wife or children what has been deposited with him. And one who deposits something with another does it with this understanding.]",
+ "\tIf one deposits money with a money changer, if it is bound [and sealed or tied with a distinct knot], he may not use it. Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable for restoration. [But if it is not sealed or tied with a distinct knot, even though it is bound, it is regarded as open and not bound at all, and he may use it.] If it is unbound, he may use it. Therefore, if it is lost, he is liable for restoration, [Even if he did not use it, he is like a hired watchman in respect to it, for he can use it, and he is liable for theft or loss. And if he uses it, it is like a loan to him, and he is liable, also, for accident.] (If he deposits it) with a homeowner, whether bound or unbound, he may not use it. Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable for restoration. A shopkeeper is like a homeowner. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: A shopkeeper is like a money lender. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
+ "\tIf one \"sends his hand\" against a deposit, Beth Shammai say: He is \"smitten\" with diminution and increase [in the deposit, i.e., If one deposited with him a lamb full of wool, or pregnant, and it were shorn or gave birth after he sent his hand against it, he pays for it, its shearings, and its offspring — whereby he is smitten by its \"diminution\" while with him. And with \"increase\": If it became pregnant or wool-laden while with him, he pays it laden and pregnant, as it is now — whereby he is smitten with \"increase.\"] And Beth Hillel say: (He pays) as at the time of being taken out from the owner's house, [if laden, laden; if \"empty,\" \"empty.\"] R. Akiva says: As at the time of the claim [before beth-din, it being written (Leviticus 5:24): \"To whom it belongs he shall give it on the day of his guilt\" — on the day he is made liable in judgment. The halachah is in accordance with Beth Hillel.] If one thinks to send his hand against a deposit [i.e., If he said before witnesses: \"I shall take that man's deposit for myself\"], Beth Shammai rule him liable, [it being written (Exodus 22:8): \"For every d'var (lit. 'speaking') of violation\" — From the time he speaks of sending his hand, he is a violator]. Beth Hillel say: He is not liable until he sends forth his hand, it being written (Exodus 22:7): \"If he did not send his hand against the deposit of his neighbor.\" [As to \"For every 'speaking' of violation,\" Beth Hillel expound it thus: Whence is it derived that if one told his bondsman or his messenger to send his hand against a deposit, he is liable? From: 'For every \"speaking\" of violation.'\"] How so? [Now, Beth Hillel is being explicated. Others say: \"How so?\" is omitted, and an independent ruling follows.] If one inclined a jug (of wine) and took from it a revi'ith (a fourth of a log) and it broke (afterwards), he pays only a revi'ith. [For sending forth a hand does not render one liable for accidents until he pulls or lifts (the object), this effecting acquisition.] If he lifted it and took a revi'ith from it and it broke, he pays the worth of the whole. [Not necessarily \"taking\": for if he lifted it in order to take from it he is liable for accidents even if he took nothing from it. And if he took a revi'ith from the jug and the wine remaining in the jug turned sour thereafter, even if he did not lift the jug, he pays for all of the wine, having caused it to turn sour through his act.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tGold acquires silver, and silver does not acquire gold. Copper acquires silver, and silver does not acquire copper. [Everything which is regarded as currency and passes readily in trade has the status of money and does not acquire its counterpart which is not regarded as currency and does not pass as readily in trade. The latter has the status of fruit, and pulling it is an act of confirmation. Therefore, when one pulls dinars of gold, the other acquires dinars of silver wherever they are, and neither of them can back out. For dinars of gold are fruits relative to dinars of silver. And silver does not acquire gold. For dinars of silver, which pass readily in trade, have the status of money relative to dinars of gold. So that if one of them pulled dinars of silver, the other does not acquire a dinar of gold until he pulls it, for money does not effect acquisition. And this is the reason, too, that copper acquires silver. For p'rutoth of copper, which are not so readily accounted currency, are fruits relative to dinars of silver, and silver does not acquire copper.] Bad [i.e., invalidated] money acquires good money, and good money does not acquire bad money. An asimon [(a metal piece) shaped as a coin, but, as yet, unstamped with a design] acquires a coin, and a coin does not acquire an asimon. Mitaltelin (movable objects) acquire a coin, but a coin does not acquire mitaltelin. This is the rule: All mitaltelin acquire each other. [If one were exchanged for the other, pulling the one effects acquisition of the other. \"All\" comes to include even (an exchange) of one pouch full of money for another.]",
+ "\tHow so? If he (the buyer) pulled fruits from him and did not give money, he cannot back out. If he gave him money and did not pull fruits from him, he [i.e., each one] can back out. [This is an ordinance of the sages. For by Torah law money effects acquisition, as we find in respect to hekdesh (consecrated property): \"And he shall give the money and it shall be his.\" (see Leviticus 27:19). And why did they say that pulling effects acquisition, but not money? A decree, lest the buyer leave his purchase in the house of the seller a long time, and a fire break out in the vicinity of the seller, and he fail to exert himself to rescue it. Therefore, it was placed in his (the seller's domain), to back out of the sale if he wishes. So that if it rises in value, it does so in his domain, and he may back out of the sale and gain thereby. It being considered his, he will exert himself to rescue it.] But they said: \"He who exacted punishment of the men of the generation of the flood and the generation of the Tower of Babel — He is destined to exact punishment of him who does not keep his word.\" [Even though he may back out, (if he does so) he is cursed in beth-din and told: \"He who exacted punishment of the generation of the flood, and the generation of the Tower of Babel, and the men of Sodom and Amorah, and of the Egyptians, who drowned in the sea — He is destined to exact punishment of him who does not keep his word,\" after which he (the seller) returns his money.] R. Shimon says: Whoever holds the money has the upper hand. [R. Shimon refers here to the words of the first tanna, viz.: \"If he gave him money and did not pull fruits from him, he (either the seller or the buyer) can back out.\" R. Shimon comes to tell us that sometimes the one who holds the money (that is, the seller, who received the money) has the upper hand, and he can confirm the sale if he wishes, without the buyer being able to back out. As in an instance where the buyer's upper story is rented to the seller, in which instance, if the seller wishes that the sale be confirmed, the buyer cannot back out, even if he did not pull the money. For why did the rabbis say that pulling effects acquisition? A decree, lest the seller say to the buyer: \"Your grain was burned in the upper story.\" But here, where the upper story belongs to the buyer, if a fire breaks out, he himself will exert himself and retrieve it. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon. But even if the buyer's upper story is rented to the seller, so long as he did not pull it, both buyer and seller can back out.]",
+ "\tOna'ah (\"Wronging\") is four [ma'ah of] silver [of six ma'ah to a dinar, a sela being four dinars], of twenty-four [ma'ah] of silver to a sela, a sixth of the purchase. [If the purchase were for a sela, twenty-four ma'ah (of silver), ona'ah being one-sixth of the purchase, he must return the entire ona'ah, four (ma'ah of) silver.] Until when is he [who was wronged] permitted to retract? [\"permitted\" is stated to apprise us that even \"He who exacted payment, etc.\" does not obtain if the purchase were retracted or the sixth returned.] Until he can show it [the purchase] to a merchant or to one of his kin. [And if he took longer, he (is regarded as having) waived his ona'ah. And the seller can always retract. For the purchase is not in his hand for him to show it to a merchant or to his kin if he were wronged. And if it were known that there had come to his hand a similar purchase, and he knew that he had erred, and he kept quiet and made no claim, he cannot go back and claim, having pardoned.] R. Tarfon taught in Lod: Ona'ah is eight (ma'ah of) silver to a sela, a third of the purchase — and the merchants of Lod rejoiced. [For they were expert in wares and they sold them dear. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Tarfon.] He said to them: \"It is permitted to retract the entire day\" — at which they said: \"Let R. Tarfon leave us in our place\" — and they reverted to the words of the sages.",
+ "\tBoth the buyer and the seller can claim ona'ah. Just as a non-merchant can claim ona'ah, so can a merchant. R. Yehudah says: A merchant cannot claim ona'ah. [For he is expert (in wares) and it may be presumed that he waived any ona'ah. As to his having sold it for that price (in the first place), it is because (the opportunity for) another sale arose, and now he wishes to back out. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] Whoever claims ona'ah has the upper hand. If he [the seller] wishes, he can tell him: \"Give me my money,\" or \"Give me the amount of he ona'ah.\"",
+ "\tHow much may a sela lack and ona'ah not obtain? [A coin which is current, and always being ground down with usage — How much may it lack so that there be no ona'ah in one's using it?] R. Meir says: Four issarin [to a sela], which are one issar to a dinar, [one twenty-fourth of it: two ma'ah of silver being a dinar; one ma'ah, two pondyonim; a pondyon, two issarin. R. Yehudah says: Four pondyonoth, a pondyon to a dinar, [one-twelfth of it]. R. Shimon says: Eight pondyonoth, two pondyonoth to a dinar, [a sixth of it, as ona'ah in general. And this is the halachah.]",
+ "\tUntil when is it permitted to retract (for coin ona'ah)? In cities, [where there are money changers], until he shows it to the money changer; in villages, [where there are no money changers], until Sabbath eve, [when he comes to spend it for (provisions for) the Sabbath meal, when he will discover if it will be accepted in payment.] If he recognized it, even after twelve months. [This is what is meant: If he (the giver of the coin) were a chasid, and wished to go beyond the letter of the law — if he recognized it as the sela he gave him, he should accept it even after twelve months.] And he has only resentment against him. [This is what is meant: If he is not a chasid and does not wish to accept it from him, he (the receiver) has only resentment against him, the receiver having caused himself the loss by not having returned it in time.] And he gives it for (redemption of) second-tithe, without apprehension, for he is a mean person. [This refers to a coin rubbed out to the point of ona'ah. He gives it for (redemption of) second-tithe and need have no apprehension of asimon (see 4:1), second-tithe being redeemed only with a coin (stamped with a design), for it is called a \"coin.\" For one who does not take it at its worth as a coin, but only as cast silver, is regarded as a mean person.]",
+ "\tOna'ah is four (ma'ah of) silver [for the purchase of a sela, twenty-four ma'ah of silver, whereby ona'ah is found to be a sixth, as stated above (4:3). It is restated here for the sake of (what follows, viz.:) \"And the claim is two (ma'ah of) silver.\"] And the claim is two (ma'ah of) silver. [For there is no shvuath hadaynim (an oath imposed by the judges) on a claim less than two (ma'ah of) silver, where the one claims: \"You owe me two ma'ah of silver,\" and the other admits to the worth of a p'rutah and denies the rest, or admits to the whole except for a p'rutah.] And the admission is the worth of a p'rutah [to render it partial admission so that he be liable for an oath]. And a woman may be betrothed with the worth of a p'rutah. And one who benefits the worth of a p'rutah of hekdesh (consecrated property) is guilty of abuse (of hekdesh). And if one finds the worth of a p'rutah, he must call it out, [but not less than that amount, it being written (Deuteronomy 22:3): \"…which shall go lost from him\" — to exclude a lost object which is not worth a p'rutah.] And if one steals the worth of a p'rutah from his neighbor, and swears to him, he must take it to him even to Media [if he confess that he swore falsely, in which instance he has no atonement until he returns it to the one he stole it from himself, and not to his messenger, it being written (Numbers 5:7): \"and he shall give it to whom he owes it.\"]",
+ "\tThere are five who add a fifth (to the payment of the principal): One who eats t'rumah, [a non-priest who eats t'rumah gedolah unwittingly], and t'rumath ma'aser [ma'aser from ma'aser], and t'rumath ma'aser of demai [One who buys produce from an am ha'aretz must separate t'rumath ma'aser, but not t'rumah gedolah, all being heedful to separate that], and challah, and bikkurim. (One who eats these) adds a fifth. [All of these five are reckoned as one, all being called \"t'rumah,\" and all being subsumed in that category]. And one who redeems neta revai (the fruits of the fourth year) and his ma'aser sheni adds a fifth. [(\"neta revai\":) This is derived: \"holy\" (Leviticus 19:24) — \"holy\" (Ibid. 27:30) from ma'aser sheni as adding a fifth. And these two, also, are reckoned as one, both being derived from one verse in respect to ma'aser. (\"his ma'aser sheni\":) [It is specifically from \"his\" ma'aser that he adds a fifth, it being written (Ibid. 31): \"…a man of his ma'aser.\"] One who redeems his hekdesh adds a fifth. [\"his hekdesh,\" and not that of others, it being written (Leviticus 27:19): \"…he who consecrates it.\"] One who derives benefit the worth of a p'rutah [unwittingly] from hekdesh is liable for a me'ilah (\"abuse\") sacrifice and] adds a fifth. And one who steals a p'rutah's worth from his neighbor and swears (falsely) to him adds a fifth.",
+ "\tThese are things in respect to which ona'ah does not obtain: bondsmen, bills, lands, and hekdeshoth (consecrated property), [it being written (Leviticus 25:14): \"And if you sell a selling to your fellow, or acquire from the hand of your fellow\" — to exclude lands which are not movable, and to exclude bondsmen, who are likened to land. Bills — it being written: \"And if you sell a selling,\" something whose substance is bought and sold — to exclude bills, which serve only as corroboration. Hekdeshoth — (Ibid.): \"You shall not wrong one man, his brother\" — his brother, and not hekdesh.] Kefel payment does not obtain with them, it being written in respect to a watcher's claiming (falsely) that it (what had been entrusted with him) had been stolen (Exodus 22:8): \"For every thing of violation\" — general; \"for an ox, for an ass, etc.\" — specific; \"for every lost object\" — a reversion to the general. We have here an instance of \"general-specific-general,\" in which the ruling follows the nature of the specific, viz.: Just as the specific is explicitly something movable and of intrinsic monetary value, so all (for kefel liability) must be movable and of intrinsic monetary value: to exclude lands, which are not movable; to exclude bondsmen, which are likened to land; to exclude bills, which, although they are movable, are not of intrinsic monetary value. Hekdeshoth — Scripture states (Ibid.): \"his neighbor,\" and not hekdesh.] And four and five payment does not obtain with them [if one stole and slaughtered or sold an ox or lamb of hekdesh, Scripture mandating \"four and five\" payment, and not three for a sheep and four for an ox. For since they are excluded from kefel, they are reduced by one, kefel in an instance of slaughtering or selling being included in the four and five payment.] An unpaid watcher does not swear (to absolve himself of payment for the above), and a hired watcher does not pay (for them if they were lost or stolen), [it being written (Exodus 22:9): \"If a man give to his neighbor\" — general; \"an ass or an ox or a lamb\" — specific; \"or any beast to watch\" — a reversion to the general. We have here an instance of \"general-specific-general,\" in which the ruling follows the nature of the specific, viz.: Just as the specific is explicitly something movable, etc. Hekdeshoth — Scripture states (Ibid.): \"his neighbor,\" and not hekdesh.] R. Shimon says: With kodshim (consecrated animals) for which one must make restoration, [as when he said: \"It is upon me to bring a burnt-offering,\" and he separated it, and it sustained a blemish, and he sold it], ona'ah obtains. [For since if it died or it were stolen, he must make restoration, it is considered his and is subsumed in: \"And you shall not wrong, one man, his brother.\"] And (with kodshim) for which one must not make restoration, [as when he said: \"This is (a burnt-offering)\"], ona'ah does not obtain. R. Yehudah says: Ona'ah also does not obtain with one who sells a Torah scroll, [it having no delimited value], a pearl, and a beast. [For one desires to match them. If he has a good plow-ox, he looks for one like it to team it with under the yoke. For if he teams a weak ox with a strong one, he harms the latter. And so with a fine pearl, (he desires) to set it with its mate in the gold of the yechidith (a type of ornament).] They said to him: They specified only these (the foregoing, as not subject to ona'ah). [The halachah is neither in accordance with R. Yehudah nor with R. Shimon.]",
+ "\tJust as there is ona'ah in buying and selling, so there is ona'ah in words, [it being written (Leviticus 25:17): \"And you shall not wrong, one man his fellow, and you shall fear your G d.\" This speaks of verbal wronging, the good or evil intent of one's words not being manifest, but known only to the speaker.] One should not ask another the price of an article if he does not intend to buy it. If he were a penitent, he should not say to him: \"Remember your past deeds.\" If he were the descendant of proselytes, he should not say to him: \"Remember the deeds of your ancestors,\" as it is written (Exodus 22:20): \"And a stranger you shall not wrong, and you shall not oppress him.\"",
+ "\tProduce may not be intermixed with produce [If one says to his neighbor: \"I am selling you the produce of this field,\" he may not intermix it with the produce of another field], even new with new, and it goes without saying, new with old. [If the agreement were that he sell him old, he may not intermix it with new, for the old is dry and more readily convertible to flour than the new.] In truth, with wine they permitted intermixing hard (i.e., sharp) with soft, for it [the hard] enhances it [the soft. Therefore, if the agreement were that he give him soft, he may intermix it with hard; but if the agreement were that he give him hard, he may not intermix it with soft.] Lees of wine [from one jug] may not be intermixed with wine [from a different jug.] But he may give him its lees [i.e., from the wine itself.] If one's wine became mixed with water, he may not sell it in a shop [p'rutah by p'rutah] unless he informed him [(each buyer) that it was mixed with water], and he may not sell it to a merchant [all at once] even if he informs him, for [he takes it] only to deceive therewith [and to sell it in a shop.] In a place where it was the custom to put water into wine, they may do so. [This, only between the wine pressing seasons. For since this was the custom, there is no misrepresentation here, all wines being of this nature.]",
+ "\tA merchant may take (produce) from five threshing floors and place it into one storage bin. [For all know that it was not grown in his fields and that he bought it from many people; and they buy it from him with this understanding. (It was the custom of merchants to buy (produce) from field owners at threshing time and to place it in their bins)]. (He may take wine) from five wine vats and place it in one cask, so long as he does not contrive to mix them, [letting it out that he bought most of it from a \"prime\" source, and mixing it (with wine) from a different place, his neighbors thinking that it is all from the same source.] R. Yehudah says: \"A shopkeeper should not hand out parched ears and nuts to children because he thereby accustoms them to come to him. The sages permit it. And he may not sell below the market price [because he thereby accustoms people to come to him and constricts his neighbor's livelihood.] The sages say: \"May he be remembered for the good!\" [For this brings the price down. And this is the halachah.] One may not sift (the chaff of) grisin (beans split in a mill, one into two. For their improved appearance enables him to raise the price beyond the worth of the chaff removal.] These are the words of Abba Shaul. And the sages permit it. [For the buyer can evaluate the cost of chaff removal by comparing them with others. And it is worth his while to pay more for these sifted ones to spare himself the trouble (of sifting). The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] And they concur that he should not do so (only) on the surface of the container [to enhance their appearance, without having sifted the chaff below], for he is only an \"eye-stealer\" [with this surface sifting.] One may \"touch up\" neither a man [a Canaanite bondsman awaiting sale], a beast, nor vessels."
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tWhich (form of forbidden interest) is neshech and which is tarbith? Which is neshech? Lending a sela (four dinars) for five dinars; two sa'ah of wheat for three, (called \"neshech\") because he \"bites\" (noshech), [taking from him what he did not give him.] And which is tarbith? Increasing [profit to oneself] through produce. [And both in lending money and lending produce there is ribith (increase), for his money increases, but the latter part (of the Mishnah) treats of ribith by rabbinical ordinance, through buying and selling.] How so? If he bought wheat from him at a golden dinar [twenty-five silver dinars] to a kor (of wheat), and this was the market price [(And he is permitted to give him money now to receive from him wheat the entire year at that price according to the amount of money that he gave him even though right now he does not have wheat. As we learned (5:7): \"If the market price were announced, they may transact (on that basis). And even though he (the seller) may not have (the produce), another has,\" and the seller can buy it now at that price)] — If he said to him: \"Give me my wheat, for I wish to sell it and buy wine for it,\" and he (the seller) said to him: \"I accept your wheat at thirty dinars (to the kor), and I will give you wine for it\" — If he has no wine (this is ribith). [It is permitted if he (the seller) gave him wheat, but if he transacted to give him wine for it, and he has no wine, it is forbidden, lest the price of wine rise. And even if he transacts with him according to the current, announced market price, since he (the buyer) does not give him money, in which instance we could say that he (the seller) could buy wine (now) for the money he received; but he (the seller) came to take upon himself the price of wheat as a debt and to transfer it to the wine debt — if he has no wine, this is forbidden. For if he had wine, it would be immediately acquired by this one (the buyer), wine having been stipulated as payment for the debt, and if wine increased in price, it would have done so in his domain.]",
+ "\tIf one gives a loan to his neighbor, he (the lender) may not live in his (the borrower's) courtyard free, and he (the borrower) may not rent it to him for less (than its price), this being ribith. It is permitted to add to rent [for granting time to pay], but it is not permitted to add to the sale price [for granting time to pay]. How so? If he rented him his courtyard and said to him: \"If you pay me now, you can have it for ten selaim a year; and if by month, it is a sela for a month,\" this is permitted. If he sold him his field and said to him: \"If you pay me now, you can have it for a thousand zuz; and if by harvest time, it is twelve maneh (twelve hundred zuz),\" this is forbidden. [The rationale: Rent is paid only at the end (of the month). Therefore, if he takes from him a sela a month, twelve selaim (a year), this is not payment for waiting, for he was not obliged to pay him rent until the end of the month. As to his telling him: \"If you pay me now, you can have it for ten selaim a year,\" if he does pay him early, this constitutes the renter's waiving part of the rent and reducing it. But with selling, as soon as he (the buyer) pulls the object, he is obliged to pay for it; so that when the seller says to him: \"If you pay me now, you can have it for a thousand zuz,\" this is its price, and if he adds to it for waiting until harvest time, this constitutes \"payment for waiting.\" (\"If he sold him his field\":) The same applies with movables and all wares. To sell something at more than its worth because of waiting time is forbidden and is avak ribith (\"the dust of ribith\") by rabbinic ordinance. In all instances of avak ribith, if the money is given, it cannot be recovered by the court, as opposed to ribith ketzutzah (\"determinate ribith\"), which is recovered by the court.]",
+ "\tIf he sold him the field and he gave him part of the money, and he (the seller) said to him: \"When you wish, bring the (rest of the) money and take what is yours,\" this is forbidden. [As when the seller said to the buyer: \"When you bring the rest of the money, acquire it from now.\" It is forbidden to do this, for if the seller eats fruits (of the field) in the interim, when the other brings the money, the field is found to have been acquired by him from the day of the sale, and the seller (is found) to have eaten fruits as payment for waiting. And if the buyer eats fruits from now, perhaps he will not bring the rest of the money and the seller will return what he had received from him, so that the field will be found not to have been sold to him (the seller having said: \"When you bring the rest of the money, acquire it from now,\" and he did not bring it), and the first payment would be (found to have been) a loan in general to the buyer, and the seller would be found to have eaten fruits in payment (for having granted a loan)]. If he gave him a loan for his field, and he (the lender) said to him: \"If you do not repay me from now until three years, it is mine,\" it is his. [As when he (the borrower) said to him: \"Acquire it from now if I do not repay you from now until three years.,\" For this is not an asmachta (a mere \"understanding\"), but a bona fide kinyan (act of acquisition), the lender taking possession of it now for this money (that he gave the borrower), and it (the field) becomes cheaper in his (the lender's) possession. And the fruits are deposited with a third person. If the borrower repays the loan within three years, the fruits are given to him. And if not, they are given to the borrower, the field having been acquired by him from the time of the loan, and that loan having been payment for the field.] And Baitos b. Zonin did so (i.e., He borrowed upon his field) by the counsel of the sages.",
+ "\tA shopkeeper is not set up (in a transaction) for half-profits, and one may not give (him) money to buy produce for half-profits unless he gives him (the shopkeeper) his wage as a worker. [One may not tell a shopkeeper: \"This produce is sold in the market four sa'ah for a sela, and you sell it retail in your shop and profit a sa'ah. Take this produce and sit and sell it in your shop, and we shall share the profits.\" The rationale: We rule that such a transaction is half loan-half deposit. One who accepts wares for half-profits presumably accepts responsibility for accident and depreciation of half the principal. Therefore, that half, since he is liable for accident, is a loan to him, being appraised for him at the market price and yielding him half profit. It is found, then, that the shopkeeper looks after the other's half, which is deposited with him in payment for a time grant in returning the loan, for which reason it is forbidden — unless he pays the shopkeeper for looking after that half as a worker idled from his regular work, i.e., if he were a carpenter or a smith — how much he would take to be freed from this heavy work to engage in light work.] Hens are not set for half (profits) [i.e., One may not assess the value of eggs and give them to the owner of a hen to set it upon them to hatch chicks for half of the profit (the cost differential of chicks to eggs). For since the hen owner accepts responsibility for half the worth of the eggs if they are spoiled or if they (the chicks) die, half of the transaction is a loan, so that the hen owner is found to be looking after the other half in payment for a time grant (in returning the loan)]. And calves and foals are not assessed at half [i.e., \"Now, they are worth this and this — Take it upon yourself to raise them for two years for half-profits, and for half-liability if they die\"], unless he pays him for his work and for his food expenditure [(In the former instance,) what he pays to feed the chicks]. But small calves and foals may be accepted for half-profit [without assessment, (with the understanding) that if they die, he pays nothing, and if they live, they are divided.], and they are raised until they are a third [of their (anticipated full) height, at which point they divide.] And an ass, until it can bear a load. [This was their practice in raising them before dividing them.]",
+ "\tAssessments are made of cow and ass [(large ones that are fit for labor, all of the labor going to the receiver)], and of everything that they do and eat, for half-profits [to divide their appreciation in worth and in offspring.] Where the custom is to divide the offspring immediately [when the time arrives; for a small beast, thirty days, and for a large one, fifty], they divide; where the custom is to raise them, they do so. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: A calf is assessed together with its mother, and a foal together with its mother [and it is not necessary to provide payment for work and food for the calf (see 4:4), but only for the mother. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.] And mafrin on one's field without fear of ribith (transgression). [(\"mafrin\":) as in parah veravah (being fruitful and multiplying). Some read it \"mafriz,\" as in (Zechariah 2:8): \"P'razoth will Jerusalem be inhabited\" — That is, he \"expands\" upon his field. As when the renter of the field says to the owner: \"You are wont to take ten kor a year for renting your field. Lend me two hundred zuz for fertilizer so that I can sow and plow the field, and I will give you twelve kor a year for rent, and I will return your money.\" This is permitted, these two korim being added because he receives a better field, whose rental is higher than that of an inferior field.]",
+ "\tTzon-barzel is not accepted from a Jew, it being ribith. [Tzon-barzel is property for which the receiver assumes full responsibility. Its value is assessed for him, and so long as he does not return the money, they share the profits. And even though this is a superfluous Mishnah, it already having been taught (5:4): \"A shopkeeper is not set up for half-profits\" because he takes half-liability upon himself — how much more so here! Still, it is taught because of what follows, viz.:] But tzon-barzel is accepted from a gentile. And they (gentiles) are borrowed from and lent to on interest. The same applies to a ger-toshav (a gentile living in Eretz Yisrael who abides by the seven Noachide mitzvoth). A Jew may lend the money of a gentile by warrant of the gentile, but not by warrant of a Jew. [As when a Jew borrowed money from a gentile and wished to return it to him. If another Jew found him and said: \"Give it to me and I will raise it (the repayment) for you as you raise it for him\" — If he (the original borrower) placed him next to the gentile — even if the Jew (himself) gives it to him at the behest of the gentile, it is permitted. And if he did not place him next to the gentile, it is forbidden, for he (the Jew himself) would be lending him upon interest.]",
+ "\tProduce is not transacted for until the market price is announced. If the market price were announced, they may transact (on that basis). And even though he (the seller) may not have (the produce), another has, (and the seller can buy it now at that price). If he (the buyer) were the first to harvest [and he had a grain stack, and the market price had not yet been announced], he may transact with him [at whatever price he wishes] for the stack. [For since he has produce, there is no ribith here, the stack being acquired by him from now (i.e., the time of the transaction). And even though he did not pull it (to effect acquisition), since even if he did not have produce, it would be only avak ribith by rabbinic ordinance, when he does have it they did not decree (against it)] (He may transact with him) for the avit of grapes and for the ma'atan of olives. [An avit is a large vessel where grapes are stored before being trodden, being warmed there for the better exuding of their wine. The (comparable) vessel for olives is called a \"ma'atan.\"], and for the \"eggs\" of the potter [If he had collected earth and shaped it into \"eggs\" for the making of pots, he may transact with him for the pots at whichever price he wishes, though the market price had not yet been announced], and [he may transact with him] for lime [at whichever price he wishes] once they [the wood and the stones] have been steeped in the kiln [to be burned into lime]. And he may transact with him for (fertilizer) foliage all the days of the year. R. Yossi says: Foliage may not be contracted for unless he had foliage in his refuse heap. The sages permit it. [The difference between the sages and the first tanna: The first tanna says: \"All the days of the year.\" R. Yossi differs, saying: Whether it be the rainy season or the dry season, the seller must have foliage in his heap. And the sages permit it only in the dry season. For even though he may have none, others do have, all having foliage (in the dry season), it already having turned to mould and chaff in the rainy season — but they do not permit it in the rainy season. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] And he contracts with him according to the \"high\" market price [i.e., \"If the market price falls below the present one, give it to me at the cheaper price.\" (\"high\":) i.e., \"cheap.\" He gives him \"high,\" abundant produce at low cost.] R. Yehudah says: even if he did not contract with him according to the \"high\" market price, he may tell him: \"Give it to me at this (\"high\") price, or return my money.\" [For he did not pull (to effect acquisition), and he can back out. And even \"He who exacted payment, etc.\" does not obtain here. For he had not given his money to acquire the produce then (i.e., at the time he paid), but afterwards; and in the interim the market price had changed. It is assumed that one contracts for the lowest market price. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
+ "\tA man may lend his tenant-farmers wheat-for-wheat for sowing, but not for eating. [It is permitted to lend sa'ah-for-sa'ah to a tenant-farmer only when he wishes to sow it. The rationale: In a place where it is the tenant-farmer who supplies the seed, if he has no seed for sowing the field, the owner will send him away. And if the tenant-farmer borrows from the owner and sows and returns (a sa'ah of) wheat to him when the price of wheat has risen, this is not (return on) a loan, but it is as if he (the tenant-farmer) goes down to (work) it now on the understanding that the owner takes from the seed first from the share that reverts to the tenant-farmer, and the tenant-farmer takes what is left as pay for his work, having contracted to work it on this understanding — that he take less than other tenant-farmers according to the amount of the seed, and there is no ribith here.] For R. Gamliel would lend his tenant-farmers wheat-for-wheat for sowing. Whether it (wheat) were dear (when he lent it) and it were cheap (when returned), or it were cheap (when lent) and dear (when returned), he would take from them according to the cheaper price. Not because this is the halachah, but because he wished to be strict with himself. [That is, it was necessary to adduce this Mishnah because R. Gamliel was stringent, taking (the wheat back) according to the cheaper price if the price fell. The Mishnah apprises us that this is not the halachah, but that R. Gamliel wished to be strict with himself.]",
+ "\tOne may not say to his neighbor: \"Lend me a kor of wheat, and I will give it back to you at harvest time,\"; but he may say to him: \"Lend me until my son comes,\" or \"until I find the key.\" [For since he has (produce), it is legitimate, the sages having decreed (against it) only when he has none. And even if he has only one sa'ah, he may borrow several kor upon it. For with each one we say, this will be its replacement, it not being acquired by the lender, and the borrower being permitted to sell it or eat it. And when he borrows each one, he does so licitly.] And thus did Hillel say: A woman may not lend a loaf to her neighbor until she \"converts\" it to money, lest wheat become dearer and they come to ribith (transgression). [The halachah is not in accordance with Hillel, but with the sages, who say that one may lend and repay \"plain\" (i.e., without \"conversion\")].",
+ "\tOne may say to his neighbor: \"Weed with me [today] and I will weed with you [tomorrow]; dig with me, and I will dig with you.\" But he may not say to him: \"Weed with me, and I will dig with you; dig with me, and I will weed with you. [Sometimes one (activity) is more difficult than the other, and agar natar (\"reward for waiting\") obtains.] All the days of the dry season are one, and all the days of the rainy season are one. [And we are not concerned about one day being longer than the other. And it is permitted to tell one: \"Dig with me this day of the dry season, and I will dig with you a different day of the dry season.\" And so, with the rainy season.] He may not say to him: \"Plow with me in the dry season, and I will plow with you in the rainy season.\" [For field work is more difficult in the rainy season.] R. Gamliel says: There is antecedent ribith and supervening ribith. How so? If he thought to borrow from him and he sent him a gift, thinking: \"So that you lend me,\" this is antecedent ribith. If he borrowed from him and returned his money and sent him a gift, saying: \"For the money that was 'idle' with me,\" this is supervening ribith. R. Shimon says: There is ribith of words: He (the borrower) should not say to him: \"Know that that man is coming from that place.\"",
+ "\tThese transgress a negative commandment: the lender, the borrower, the guarantor, and the witness. The sages say: Also the scribe. They transgress (Leviticus 25:37): \"You shall not give,\" (Ibid. 36): \"You shall not take from him.\" (Exodus 22:24): \"Do not be to him as a creditor,\" (Ibid.) \"You shall not impose interest upon him,\" and (Leviticus 19:14): \"And before a blind man you shall not place a stumbling-block. And you shall fear your G d; I am the L rd.\" [The lender transgresses all. The borrower transgresses (Deuteronomy 23:20): \"You shall not cause (the taking of) interest\" — Do not cause your brother (the lender) to take interest. And he transgresses (Ibid. 21): \"And you shall not cause your brother to take interest.\" And \"Before a blind man you shall not place a stumbling-block.\" The guarantor and the witnesses transgress \"You shall not impose interest upon him\" alone.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tIf one hired craftsmen and they misled one another, they have only \"complaint\" against each other. [(\"and they misled one another\":) If one of the workers sent by the employer to hire his fellow misled them — as when the employer told him to hire each at four dinars a day, and he went and hired them at three, they have only \"complaint\" against him, for they accepted three; but they can say to him: Do you not subscribe to (Proverbs 3:27): \"Do not withhold good from its (rightful) recipients?\" Another interpretation: \"and they misled one another\": They backed out, not desiring to do the employer's work on his terms; or the employer backed out, as when he said to them in the morning, before they began working: \"I don't want you.\"] If he hired an ass driver or a wagon driver to deliver piryafarin [slanted poles for making a litter] or flutes [for (mourning) a dead man or for a groom], or workers to raise his flax from the soaking vat, or for any other \"perishable\" thing, and they backed out — In a place where there is no man [i.e., where he cannot find other workers to hire, and the flax will go lost], he hires on their account [men at their wage, but not higher], or he deceives them [He tells them he will give them an additional zuz, but gives them only what he stipulated with them in the beginning.]",
+ "\tIf one hired craftsmen [contractually — so much work for so much money], and they backed out [after doing part of it], they have the lower hand. [If the price of labor went up and he cannot find anyone to complete the work at what is owed the first towards its completion, he holds back from what is owing them as much as he needs for the work to be completed at the cost stipulated with the first. And if the price of labor went down, and he can find someone to complete the work for less (than what is owed the first toward its completion), he estimates what they have done and pays them as stipulated. If they did half, he gives them half pay; and they cannot say: \"You have other workers to complete the job — give us all of our wage less what these take.\"] If the employer backs out, he has the lower hand. [He must pay them for what they have done; and if the price of labor went down, he must perforce pay them as stipulated (for the whole job) less what he must pay to complete it.] Whoever makes changes has the lower hand. [As when one gave a dyer wool to be dyed red and he dyed it black. If the improvement (in the wool) is greater than the expense, he does not give him his full wage, but only what covers the cost of wool and dyes. And if the expense is greater than the improvement, he gives him the (amount of) the improvement.] And whoever backs out has the lower hand. [This, to include one who sells his field to his neighbor for a thousand zuz, receiving two hundred in advance. If the seller backs out, the buyer has the upper hand. If he wishes, he can tell him: \"Give me my money,\" and if he wishes, he can tell him: \"Give me land for my money.\" And if the buyer backs out, the seller has the upper hand. If he wishes, he can tell him: \"Here is your money,\" and if he wishes, he can tell him: \"Here is land for your money.\"]",
+ "\tIf one hired an ass to lead it on a mountain and he led it in a valley; in a valley, and he led it on a mountain — Even if this (distance) were ten mil and that ten mil, and it died, he is liable. [If he led it on top of the mountain, even if the road were smooth and straight, he is liable if it died because of the (rarefied) atmosphere, not having slipped and not having become overheated. For since he deviated (from the stipulated condition), he (the owner) can tell him: \"It died only because it was not used to mountain air,\" or (as the case may be) \"It was not used to the atmosphere of the valley.\" And for this reason no distinction is made between slipping and becoming overheated, as it is below.] If one rented an ass and it were blinded by a cataract [Another interpretation: and its legs became worm-eaten], or it were seized [for the king's service], he (the owner) may say to him: \"Here is yours (i.e., what you hired) before you.\" [This, only when he said to him: \"This ass,\" and he had hired it for (bearing) a load. But if he had hired it for riding, even if he had said: \"This ass,\" he cannot tell him: \"Here is yours before you,\" lest it fall under him on a bridge or throw him into a pit. Likewise, if he hired out an ass, unqualified (by \"This\"), even for a load, he cannot say to him: \"Here is yours before you,\" but he must provide him with a different animal. And if he does not, he (the one who hired it) need not pay him anything for all the distance that it went with him.] If it died or (its leg) were broken, he is liable to provide him with an ass. [The owner must sell the hide and the carcass for dogs and add money to provide him with an ass, or he must hire another ass for him with the money (he received) for the carcass. For it is \"this\" ass that he committed himself for — or he must return his hire.] If one hired an ass to lead it on a mountain and he led it in a valley, if it slipped, he is not liable, [for it would have been more likely to slip on a mountain top, which is steep], and if it became overheated he is liable, [for a valley generates heat, being surrounded by mountains and \"shut off\" from air.], and if it became overheated [by climbing a mountain], he is liable, [the ascent having caused it. And he had deviated (from the stipulated condition) by leading it up a mountain.] (If he hired an ass) to lead it in a valley and he led it on a mountain, if it slipped, he is liable; if it became overheated, he is not liable. If (it became overheated) because of the ascent, he is liable.",
+ "\tIf one hired a cow to plow on a mountain [(and all of the owner's plowing implements and his youths go with his animal and plow with it)], and he plowed in a valley — If the coulter broke, he is not liable. (If he hired it to plow in a valley) and he plowed on a mountain — if the coulter broke, he is liable, [for mountains, being rocky, are harder to plow than valleys.] To tread pulse, and it trod grain, he is not liable [if it slipped]. To tread grain, and it trod pulse, he is liable, for pulse is slippery.",
+ "\tIf one hires an ass to carry wheat and it carried barley, [which is lighter than wheat], he is liable [for damages if he added three kabin. We do not say that since barley is lighter, he can add until the weight of a letech of wheat (the carrying weight of an ass)]. (If one hires an ass to carry) grain and it carried straw, he is liable. For \"volume\" is as difficult [for an animal to carry] as a burden. [Even though it does not weigh as much as wheat, its volume is the same, and volume is like weight.] To carry a letech of wheat (half a kor. A kor is thirty sa'ah], and it carried a letech of barley, he is not liable. And if he added to its burden, he is liable. How much must he add to its burden to be liable? Somchos says in the name of R. Meir: A sa'ah to a camel; three kabin to an ass. [The halachah is in accordance with Somchos. If he added less than this amount, he is not liable if the ass were injured, and he pays for the additional amount alone.]",
+ "\tAll craftsmen [(contractors, who undertake to do a job in their homes)] are hired watchers. [They are liable for theft and loss (of the vessels entrusted with them). For by reason of the benefit of being able to hold them as security for payment, they become hired watchers over them.] And all of them who say: \"Take what is yours [For I have already finished my work and I am not holding it as security], and [after you take it], bring money\" — [From that time on,] he is an unpaid watcher. (If one says to another:) \"Watch (this) for me [today], and I will watch for you\" [tomorrow], he is a hired watcher. [But if he says: \"Watch this for me, and I will watch that for you in its place,\" both (watching) at the same time, this is called \"watching with the owner\" (see Exodus 22:14), and he is not liable.] (If one said:) \"Watch (this) for me,\" and the other said: \"Put it down before me,\" he is an unpaid watcher. [But if he just said: \"Put it down before you,\" or merely: \"Put it down,\" he is not even an unpaid watcher, not having undertaken to watch it at all.]",
+ "\tIf one lends another on a pledge, he (the lender) is a hired watcher, [whether he lent him and then took the pledge, or took the pledge and then lent him. And what is his \"benefit\"? The reward of a mitzvah.] R. Yehudah says: If he lent him money, he is an unpaid watcher, [R. Yehudah holding \"the reward of a mitzvah\" not to be relevant in this regard]; if he lent him fruits, he is a hired watcher, [for fruits tend to rot (and his \"benefit\" is anticipating fresh fruit in return). The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] Abba Shaul says: One is permitted to rent out [to others] a poor man's pledge [entrusted with him], to set [its rental fee] and progressively [deduct from the poor man's) debt.], for it is as if he returns a lost object (to the poor man). [And this, only with a pledge whose rental is high and its depreciation (through use) low, such as hoe or spade, and the like. And this is the halachah.]",
+ "\tIf one carries a jug from place to place and it breaks, whether he is an unpaid watcher or a hired watcher, he must swear. [Presumably, he swears that he was not derelict, and he is not liable.] R. Eliezer says: This one and that one swear. And I wonder if this one and that one can swear. [That is, I, too, heard from my teachers, like R. Meir, that each one swears. But I wonder in respect to both. How can they exempt themselves with an oath? How can a hired watcher exempt himself with an oath that he was not derelict? Even without being derelict he is also liable. For this (the breaking of the jug) is not an (outright) accident, but comparable to theft and loss, which are close to dereliction and accident. What is more, if it broke in a place which was not on a slant, how could even an unpaid watcher swear that he was not derelict? He certainly was! And R. Meir holds that this oath is not prescribed by law, but is a rabbinic ordinance. For if one carrying a jug from place to place were not absolved of payment by such an oath, no one would carry a jug for his neighbor from place to place. Therefore, they ordained that he swear that he did not deliberately break it, and he exempts himself.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tIf one hires workers and he tells them to rise early and work till late, in a place where it is not customary to do so, he may not compel them. [Even if he paid them more than other workers, he may not tell them: \"I am paying you more on the understanding that you rise early and work late\"; for they can tell him: \"You are paying us more on the understanding that we are good workers.\"] Where it is customary to feed them, they are fed. Where it is customary to provide them with seasoning, they are thus provided — all according to the custom of the land. [\"all\" — to include places where the workers are accustomed to eat and drink in the morning in the employer's house before going out to work. If the employer tells them: \"Go out first to work in the field, and I will bring you your food there,\" they can tell him: \"No, we will eat now in the house before going out to work in the field,\" this being the custom of the land. The Gemara explains that the Mishnah is defective and is to be understood thus: \"And if he stipulates to feed them, they receive much food.\" That is, since he does not have to stipulate this, it being the custom of the land to feed them, and he did stipulate it, the intent is that they are to be fed more than the customary fare. And] once, R. Yochanan b. Mattia said to his son: \"Go and hire workers for us.\" He went and stipulated that they would be fed; and when he came to his father, he said to him: \"My son, even if you made for them a meal like that of King Solomon in his time [(i.e., in the time of his reign, for he was both king and non-king)], you would not fulfill your obligation towards them, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. [And the meal of Abraham was larger than that of Solomon. That of Abraham — three bullocks for three men. That of Solomon — (I Kings 4:20): \"Judah and Israel, numerous, as the sands on the shore of the sea.\"] But go and tell them before they start working, [there being only \"words\" at this point; for once they start working you cannot retract]: 'On condition that you have no claim upon me but for a loaf and pulse alone.'\" R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: There was no need to say this, for it is \"all according to the custom of the land.\"",
+ "\tAnd these [workers] eat [from what they are occupied with] by Torah law: one who is occupied with what is rooted in the ground, at the end of their work [i.e., when they tear it out, viz. Deuteronomy 23:25): \"But into your vessel, you shall not place them\" — When you are placing them into the owner's vessels you may eat; that is, when they are being torn out.], and [one who is occupied] with what is torn from the ground [may eat that thing] until its labor is completed [for tithing, if it is subject to tithing, or until its labor is completed for challah, if it is subject to challah], (this,) with a thing that grows in the ground. And these do not eat: one who works in what is rooted to the ground, not at the end of the work, and (one who works) in what is torn from the ground after its work has been completed (for tithing or challah), and (one who works) in what does not grow in the ground. [viz. (Deuteronomy 25:4): \"You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing. Its not being written: \"You shall not thresh with muzzling\" implies that the muzzler is to be likened to the muzzled, and the muzzled to the muzzler, viz.: Just as the muzzled, the ox, eats what is \"torn\" (from the ground, i.e., the \"threshing\"), when it works, so the muzzler, the man, eats of what is \"torn\" when he is working in it; and just as the muzzler, etc. And just as \"threshing\" is characterized as something which grows in the ground and whose labor is not completed for tithing, and at the end of the work the laborer may eat of it — so, all things which grow in the ground and whose labor has not been completed for tithing may be eaten by the laborer at the end of the work: to exclude a laborer engaged in milking, whipping (milk), or processing cheese, which (products) do not grow in the ground; to exclude a laborer engaged in the separation of dates and figs which are stuck together, their labor having been completed for tithing; and to exclude a laborer engaged in \"weeding\" garlic and onions, removing the small ones, which will never mature, from the others, to provide more growing space for the large ones, this not being the end of the work. A laborer does not eat all of these and their like.]",
+ "\tIf one worked with his hands but not with his feet; with his feet but not with his hands; even with his shoulder, he eats. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: (He does not eat) until he works with his hands and his feet. [Just as an ox, with his hands (forelegs) and feet (hind legs), so a man, with his hands and his feet, the muzzler being likened to the muzzled. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah.]",
+ "\tIf he were working in figs, he may not eat grapes; in grapes, he may not eat figs. But he may hold back until he reaches the place of the choicest (fruits) and eat (there). And all of these (instances of workers being permitted to eat) were stated (as obtaining) only at the time of working. But by way of \"restoring a lost object\" to the owners, [i.e., so that he not stop working to eat] they ruled: Workers may eat in going from furrow to furrow. [When they finish one furrow and go to begin another, (they may eat). Even though that time is not \"the time of working,\" the owner prefers that they eat then.], and (they may eat) in returning from the wine press (to pick up another load of grapes). And an ass [may eat from the load on its back while walking] until it is unloaded.",
+ "\tA worker may eat a gourd, even if it is worth a dinar; a date, (i.e., dates) even a dinar. R. Eliezer Chisna says: A worker may not eat more than his wage, [it being written (Deuteronomy 23:25): \"as your soul\" — as (the wages) of his hire, for which he gives his soul, to climb an embankment and to \"hang\" in a tree.] The sages permit it, but a man (i.e., the worker) is taught not to be a glutton and close the door before him [by way of \"good advice.\" And the first tanna differs with the sages, saying that he is not so advised. The halachah is in accordance with the sages. (\"and close the door before him\"): i.e., and cause people not to hire him.]",
+ "One (i.e., a worker) may stipulate [(to take money instead of eating] for himself, for his grown son and daughter, for his grown bondsman and bondswoman, and for his wife, because they have \"knowledge,\" [and they know and waive it]. But he may not stipulate thus for his minor son and daughter, his minor bondsman and bondswoman, and his beast, for they lack \"knowledge.\"",
+ "\tIf one hires workers to work in his neta revai [(fruits of a tree of the fourth year, which may be eaten only in Jerusalem, or which he may redeem to bring the money to Jerusalem)], they may not eat. If he did not apprise them (that they were neta revai), he redeems them and allows them to eat. If his cakes of figs came loose [and he hired workers to re-form them], or his jugs were opened [and he hired workers to close them], they may not eat thereof, [for their (the fruits') work was completed and they became subject to ma'aser and are tevel (forbidden untithed produce).] If he did not apprise them, he must tithe it and allow them to eat.",
+ "\tWatchers of fruits eat by the law of the land, [this having become the practice], but not by Torah law. [(\"watchers of fruits\":) watchers of pressing vats and (fruit) piles; but watchers of gardens and orchards eat neither by the law of the land nor by Torah law, for a watcher is not like a worker.] There are four watchers: an unpaid watcher, a borrower, a paid watcher, and a hirer. An unpaid watcher swears on everything [i.e., on all things for which other watchers are stated to be liable. He swears that this and this occurred to him, and he is exempt.] A borrower pays for everything [theft, loss, and accident]. A paid watcher and a hirer swear that (a beast was) \"broken,\" or seized, or died (and they are exempt), and they pay for loss and theft. [All are derived from verses in Mishpatim. The first section (Exodus 22:6): \"If a man give to his neighbor, etc.\" speaks of an unpaid watcher, who is not liable for theft and loss. The second (Ibid. 9): \"If a man give to his neighbor an ass or an ox or a lamb,\" speaks of a hired watcher, who is liable for theft and loss, it being written in that regard (Ibid. 11): \"And if stolen it will be stolen from him, he shall pay to its owner.\" This tells me only of theft. Whence do I derive (liability for) loss? From: \"If stolen it will be stolen\" — in any event (i.e., any manner of loss. What is more, it follows a fortiori, viz.: Now, if he is liable for theft, which is close to being an accident, how much more so for loss, which is close to being dereliction! And a hirer, since the entire benefit is not his, is regarded as a hired watcher. A borrower is spoken of in the third section, viz. (Ibid 13): \"And if a man borrow from his neighbor, and it be broken or die, its owner not being with it, pay shall he pay.\"]",
+ "\tOne wolf is not an oness (an unavoidable \"accident\") [and a hired watcher and a hirer are liable for it, it being written (Shemoth 22:12): \"For the torn beast, he shall not pay\" — There is a torn beast for which he pays, and a torn beast for which he does not pay.] R. Yehudah says: In a wolf pack, even one wolf is an oness, [being likely to attack a man.] Two dogs are not an oness. Yadua Habavli says in the name of R. Meir: From one side, they are not an oness; from two sides, they are an oness. [The halacha is neither in accordance with R. Yehudah nor with Yadua Habavli.] One armed robber is an oness. A lion, a bear, a tiger, a leopard, and a snake are an oness. When is this so? When they come of themselves; but if they (the watchers) go to a place where wild animals or armed robbers are found, it is not an oness.",
+ "\tIf it died naturally, this is an oness. If he afflicted it [by not feeding it, or by leaving it out in the sun in the summertime, or in the cold in the wintertime], and it died, this is not an oness. If it [overpowered him and] went up to a high peak and fell off, this is an oness. If he took it up to a high peak and it fell off and died, this is not an oness. An unpaid watcher may make a condition to exempt himself from an oath; a borrower, to exempt himself from paying; a paid watcher and a hirer, to exempt themselves from an oath and from paying. [And this is not considered making a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. For he tells him: \"I consent to be your watcher only on this and this condition\"; and one does not become a watcher until he pulls the beast (to effect acquisition). And this one, when he pulled the beast, had already stipulated that he (the owner) could not impose an oath upon him. He bound himself to be subject only to some of the laws of watchers; and he is liable only for these.]",
+ "\tIf one makes a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is void. [This entire Mishnah is in accordance with R. Meir, who holds that if one makes a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah, even in respect to money matters, his condition is void. This is not the halachah. But, in monetary matters, even if one makes a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition stands.] And every condition preceded by an act is void. [If he prefaced the intended act to the desired condition, e.g., \"This is yours, if you do this and this,\" (the condition is void). For it is not like the condition of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuven, viz. (Numbers 32:29): \"If they pass over … then you shall give, etc.\" where the condition precedes the act.] And whatever (condition) can be fulfilled at the end, if he stipulates it in the beginning, [the condition being prefaced to the act], the condition stands. [But if it is not possible to fulfill the condition, the condition is void and the act stands. For (in positing this impossible condition), he is only hyperbolizing, not really intending the condition, but only desiring to taunt and goad his neighbor with words.]"
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tIf one borrowed a cow and borrowed its owner with it, [i.e., If the owner of the cow were with the borrower to do his work — whether he were borrowed or hired by him; whether to work with the cow or to do some other work]; or if he borrowed or hired the owner and then borrowed the cow, and it died, he is not liable, it being written (Exodus 22:14): \"If its owner were with him, he shall not pay\" [the implication being: If the owner of the ox were with him, with the borrower, being lent to or hired by him to do his work, at the time he lent him his cow, he shall not pay.] But if he borrowed the cow and then borrowed or hired the owner, and it died, he is liable, it being written (Exodus 22:13): \"If its owner were not with him, pay shall he pay.\" [If he (the owner of the animal) were with him (the borrower) at the time of the accident, but not at the time of the borrowing, he (the borrower) is liable, it not being \"borrowing with the owner\" to exempt him unless he were with him at the time of the borrowing. The verse is to be understood as follows: \"If its owner were not with him (the borrower)\" at the time of the borrowing, even if he were with him at the time of breaking or death, \"pay shall he pay.\"]",
+ "\tIf one borrowed a cow: If he borrowed it for half a day and hired it for half a day; if he borrowed it for this day and hired it for the next day; if he hired one and borrowed one, and it died — The lender says: The borrowed one died; on the day it was borrowed for, it died; in the time (i.e., the part of the day) that it was borrowed for, it died [and you are liable for the accident], and the other says: I do not know [i.e., perhaps the hired one died, and I am not liable for accidents], he is liable. [This Mishnah cannot be understood as it stands, for the ruling is that if one says: \"You owe me a manah and the other says: \"I do not know,\" he swears a consuetudinal oath (shvuath heseth) that he does not know, and he is not liable. Therefore, the Gemara construes the instance as one in which he says to him: \"I gave you two cows, one day to be borrowed; the other day, to be hired, and both died in the borrowing time\" — and the other says: \"One died in the borrowing time; the other, I do not know\" — he admits part (of the claim) and is liable for an oath (that he does not owe the other part), and since he cannot swear, (not knowing), he pays. This is comparable to one's saying: \"You owe me a hundred,\" and the other's saying: \"I know (that I owe you) fifty, and I do not know (if I owe you another) fifty,\" in which instance he is liable for an oath, and, not being able to swear, he pays.] If the hirer says: The hired one died; on the day it was hired for, it died; in the time (i.e., the part of the day) that it was hired for, it died — and the other says: I do not know, he is not liable. If one says: The borrowed one (died), and the other: The hired one (died), the hirer swears that the hired one died. [This, too, cannot be understood as it stands, for the ruling is that if one claims wheat and the other admits barley, he is not liable — even for barley. And here, too, what was admitted was not claimed, and what was claimed was not admitted. What place is there, then, for this oath! The Gemara, therefore, construes this as an instance of an oath through gilgul (\"rolling\"), the one saying to the other: \"Swear to me the oath of the watchers, for which you are liable, that it died a natural death,\" and since he takes this oath, he also takes the other, through gilgul, that the hired one died.] If one says I do not know, and the other says I do not know, they divide. [This Mishnah is in accordance with Somchos, who says: Money whose status (i.e., ownership) is in doubt is divided. This is not the halachah. The halachah is that the burden of the proof is upon him who would extract (money) from his neighbor. The claimee swears that he does not know, and he is exempt.]",
+ "\tIf one borrowed a cow and he [the lender] sent it to him [the borrower] with his [the lender's] son, or bondsman, or messenger, or with the son, or bondsman, or messenger of the borrower, and it died [on the way], he [the borrower] is not liable. [ Some understand this \"messenger\" of the borrower to be his hired laborer or retainer, who lives in his house, but not that he made him a messenger in the presence of witnesses; for if he had done so, the borrower would be liable for accidents as soon as it (the cow) were given him. And others say that even if he made him a messenger in the presence of witnesses, he would not thereby become liable for accidents. For he would (only) be saying, in effect: \"He is a reliable person; if you wish to send it with him, send it.\"] If the borrower said to him: Send it to me with my son; with my bondsman; with my messenger — or: with your son; with your bondsman; with your messenger — Or if the lender said to him: I am sending it with my son; with my bondsman; with my messenger — or: with your son; with your bondsman; with your messenger — and the borrower said: \"Send,\" and he sent it and it died, he is liable. And the same applies when he returns it. [(\"with your bondsman\":) This \"bondsman\" is a Hebrew bondsman. For if it were a Canaanite bondsman, \"the hand of the bondsman is as the hand of his master,\" and it would be as if it had not left the domain of the master, as if the master himself were bringing it; and the borrower would not be liable if it met with an accident on the road. (\"And the same applies when he returns it\":) If the borrower sent it with his son, with his bondsman, or with his messenger — or with the son, the bondsman, or the messenger of the lender, it does not leave the domain of the borrower until it reaches the lender; and if it met with an accident on the road, he (the borrower) is liable. If the lender said to him: Send it to me, or if the borrower said: I am sending it, etc., and the lender said: \"Send,\" and he sent it, and it met with an accident on the road, he is not liable. In our Mishnah, it is only when he returns it within the borrowing period that he is liable for accidents; but if he returns it thereafter, his status is that of a paid watcher (having benefitted from it) and not that of a borrower. And if he sends it (then) with his son, or his bondsman, or his messenger — whether his own or those of the borrower, and it met with accident on the road, he is not liable.]",
+ "\tIf one exchanged a cow for an ass and it (the cow) gave birth; likewise, if one sold his bondswoman, and she gave birth — this one says: (She gave birth) \"before I sold her\"; the other: (She gave birth) \"after I bought her,\" they divide. [For a Canaanite bondsman is acquired by money, so that when he gave the money, the bondswoman was acquired by him wherever she was. And it is not known whether he gave the money before she gave birth and the child is his (the buyer's) or after she gave birth, and the child is the (original) owner's. But a cow is not acquired by money, but by pulling. So that if he pulled it, he would know whether it had or had not given birth. This accounts for \"If one exchanged, etc.\" For through chalifin (\"exchange\"), when he pulls the one (in this instance, the ass), he acquires the other (the cow) wherever it is — for which reason it is not known whether it had or had not given birth. (\"they divide\":) Our Mishnah is in accordance with Somchos (who holds that \"money in a state of doubt is divided.\"). The halachah is not in accordance with him.] If one had two bondsmen: one big; the other small; likewise, two fields: one big, the other, small — The buyer says: \"I bought the big one.\" The other says: \"I do not know\" — He gets the big one. If the seller says: \"I sold the small one,\" and the other: \"I do not know,\" he has only the small one. If one says: \"A big one\"; and the other: \"A small one,\" the seller swears that he sold a small one. [i.e., This one (the buyer) says: (I gave you) money for a big bondsman; and the other (the seller): (You gave me) money for a small one. For, if a bondsman per se, the ruling is that oaths are not taken over bondsmen. What is more, what was claimed was not admitted, and what was admitted was not claimed, so that there would be no place for an oath.] If one says: \"I do not know,\" and the other: \"I do not know,\" they divide.",
+ "\tIf one sold his olive trees [to be cut for] (fire-) wood [and he left them in the ground], and they produced less than a revi'ith to a sa'ah [i.e., inferior olives, a sa'ah of which does not produce a revi'ith of oil], they belong to the owner of the trees. [For people are not particular about less than a revi'ith. The \"revi'ith\" here is aside from his expenses in harvesting and pressing. Our Mishnah speaks of one who sells his olive trees without specifying when they are to be cut. But if he (the seller) told him to cut them immediately, even less than a revi'ith belongs to the owner of the land. And if he told him to cut it when he wished, even more than a revi'ith belongs to the owner of the trees.] If they produced a revi'ith to a sa'ah, and one said: \"My trees produced it,\" and the other: \"My land produced it,\" they divide. If a river flooded his olive trees and transplanted them in his neighbor's field, and this one said: \"My trees produced it,\" and the other: \"My land produced it,\" they divide. [The Gemara construes this as an instance of the river washing away the trees along with their surrounding earth clumps. Since they can grow through them, they are not subject to the laws of arlah (forbidden fruits of the first three years). The first three years, they divide. For even though the other's land produces it, still, if not for the earth clumps, he would not be able to eat of it because of arlah. But after three years, it all belongs to the owner of the land, for he can say to him: \"If I myself had planted then, could I not eat after three years!\"]",
+ "\tIf one rents a house to his neighbor in the rainy season [without specifying for how much time], he may not evict him from Succoth until Pesach. And, in the dry season, thirty days. [That is, if he wishes to evict him before Pesach, he must apprise him of that (for) thirty days of the dry season, i.e., from the fifteenth of Elul, from which there are thirty days until Succoth, which is the beginning of the rainy season. And if he did not apprise him from the fifteenth of Elul, he cannot evict him until Pesach (whereby we understand that if one rents a house in the dry season without specifying time of rental, he must apprise the tenant (at least) thirty days before he evicts him.] And in the cities, [where all are desirous of living, and houses are not readily available for rental, he must apprise him before evicting him], both in the dry season and in the rainy season, (at least) one year (before). [ And just as the owner must pre-apprise, so must the tenant. In the villages, thirty days, and in the cities, twelve months. And if he fails to do so, he may not leave, but must pay his rent.] For shops (the apprisal period) both in villages and in cities is twelve months. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: (The apprisal period) for bakers' and dyers' shops is three years. [For they give credit for extended periods. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.]",
+ "\tIf one rents a house to his neighbor, the owner must provide door, door bolt, [(which is stuck in the threshold post)], lock, and everything which requires the work of a craftsman. But the tenant must provide anything which does not require the work of a craftsman. Animal dung belongs to the owner. [This, when it comes from other beasts; for, if from those of the tenant, it belongs to the tenant.] Only what comes from oven and stove [ash-fertilizer] belongs to the tenant.",
+ "\tIf one rents his house to his neighbor for a year, if the year were intercalated, it was intercalated for (the benefit of) the tenant. [(And he does not pay for an additional month, for the intercalation is included in the year.)] If he rented it to him by the month, and the year were intercalated, it was intercalated for the owner. Once, in Sepphoris, a man rented a bath-house from his neighbor for twelve (dinars of) gold for a year, for a golden dinar a month. When the case came before R. Shimon b. Gamliel and R. Yossi, they said: Let them divide the intercalated month. [The Gemara points up a contradiction, the first part of the Mishnah stating that all reverts to the tenant or to the owner and the case-ruling being that they divide! They resolve it thus: The Mishnah is defective. This is what was taught: And if he said to him: (I rent it to you) for twelve (dinars of) gold for a year, for a golden dinar a month, they divide. For we do not know whether to follow the first formulation or the last, and it once happened in Sepphoris, etc. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel and R. Yossi, but we follow the lesser (monthly) formulation. For land (unless known otherwise) is presumptively the (original) owner's, for which reason it all reverts to the owner, whether the first or the last formulation is the lesser.]",
+ "\tIf one rented a house to his neighbor and it collapsed, he must provide a (different) house for him. If it were small, he may not make it large. If it were large, he may not make it small. If it were one, he may not make it two. If it were two, he may not make it one. He may not make fewer windows or more, unless by mutual agreement."
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tIf one accepts a field from his neighbor [in arisuth (tenant-farming), to give (to the owner) a half, a third, or a fourth (of the yield), or in chachiruth (rental), for so many and so many korin a year], in a place where the custom is to cut (the grain), he cuts it; to uproot, he uproots; to plow after it, [after the cutting or the uprooting, in order to overturn roots of bad grasses in it and kill them], he plows after it — all according to the custom of the land. Just as they divide the grain, so they divide the straw and the stubble. Just as they divide the wine, so they divide the shoots and the (vine) staves. And both supply the staves. [This is the reason (for what precedes), i.e., Why is it that they divide the staves? Because both supply the new staves each year.]",
+ "\tIf one received a field from his neighbor, and it were beth hashlachin [dry land, lacking sufficient rain (and, therefore, irrigated)] or a tree-field, [and \"beloved\" of the tenant-farmer by virtue of the tree, being enabled to share in the fruits without exertion] — If the well [from which the field were irrigated] dried up, or the tree were cut, this does not reduce his rental [if he received the field on rental, so many and so many korin a year; for in the beginning he did not indicate that he was adding to the rental because of the well or the field.] If he (the renter) said to him (the owner): Rent me this beth hashlachin field, or this tree-field — If the well dried up or the tree were cut, his rental is reduced, [the renter having indicated that he was adding to the rental because of the well].",
+ "\tIf one received a field from his neighbor [for a half, a third, or a quarter of the yield], and he let it lie fallow [neither plowing nor sowing it], its yield-potential is assessed, and he (the renter) gives it (that yield) to him (the owner). For thus does he write to him: \"If I let it lie fallow and do not work it, I will pay according to its potential\" [i.e., according to what it would yield if it were properly plowed and seeded.]",
+ "\tIf one received a field from his neighbor and did not wish to weed it [i.e., to remove bad grass, which weakens the soil and impedes the growth of the grain], and he (the renter) said to him: \"What difference does it make to you [if my share is less because the grasses reduce the ears]? I will give you the rental\" [so many and so many korin, that I agreed to], he is not heeded, because he (the owner) can tell him: \"Tomorrow you may leave it, and it will raise (bad) grasses for me.\"",
+ "\tIf one received a field from his neighbor [for half, a third, or a quarter of the yield, as a tenant-farmer], and it did not yield [i.e., it yielded very little; and the tenant-farmer came to him to (inform him that he would) stop working it, it not being worth his effort] — If there is enough in it (the field) to cover the winnowing shovel (leha'amid kri) [close to two sa'ah], he must work it [perforce]. R. Yehudah said: What kind of measurement is kri? [The kri measurement is not appropriate for both a large and a small field, for the cultivation of the one is not comparable to that of the other.] Rather, (the criterion is) if there is enough (to equal) the dropping (of seed). [If the measure of the yield equals that of the sowing, he must cultivate it. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
+ "\tIf one received a field from his neighbor [in rental — so many and so many korin], and it were eaten by locusts or blasted — If it were \"a plague of the land\" [i.e., if most of the fields of that land were locust-eaten or blasted], he deducts from his rental. If it were not \"a plague of the land,\" he does not deduct from his rental, [for he (the owner) says to him: \"It's your hard luck.\"] R. Yehudah says: If he received it from him for (payment in) money, in either event, [even if it were a plague of the land], he does not deduct, [for the \"decree\" did not go forth against money.]",
+ "\tIf one received a field from his neighbor [in rental] for ten [i.e., for such and such] kor of wheat for a year, and it were blasted, he gives him [the stipulated ten kor] from its midst [i.e., from this blasted wheat, and the other cannot claim good wheat.] If the wheat were prime, he (the renter) cannot tell him (the owner): \"I will buy some (for you) from the market,\" but he must give him from its midst.",
+ "\tIf one received a field from his neighbor [in rental] to sow it with barley [i.e., for so much barley or wheat or money], he may not sow it with wheat; (If he received it to sow it with) wheat, he may sow it with barley, [for wheat weakens the soil more than barley.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel forbids it. [For it is harmful to the soil to sow it with one kind (of seed) one year, and with a different kind another. As to the halachah, all is according to the soil and the place. If the stipulation were for something that weakens the soil a little, he cannot change it and sow something that weakens it a lot. If the reverse, it is permitted.] (If he received it to sow it) with grain, he may not sow it with pulse; with pulse, he may sow it with grain. R. Shimon b. Gamliel forbids it.",
+ "\tIf one received a field from his neighbor for few years, [less than seven], he may not sow it with flax, [for flax seed greatly weakens the soil, and its roots remain in the ground for seven years], and he has no (cutting privileges) in the trunk of a sycamore, [a wild fig tree, whose branches are cut for beams.] If he received it from him for seven years, the first year he may sow it with flax, and he has (cutting privileges) in the trunk of a sycamore. [The sycamore is a wild fig tree whose branches are cut for beams. When cut, they grow again, but in fewer than seven years, they cannot be made into beams. Therefore, if he received it for fewer than seven years, he may not cut it for beams, not having received it for this purpose. For in a few years they cannot grow back (to be suitable) for beams. But if he received it for seven years, the first year he may sow it with flax, and he may cut the sycamore that is in it.]",
+ "\tIf one received a field from his neighbor for one seven-year period for seven hundred zuz, the shemitah year (in which the field must lie fallow) is included. If he received it from him for seven years for seven hundred zuz, the shemitah year is not included (and he has it for another \"productive\" year).",
+ "\tA hired day-laborer claims (his wages) the entire night. A hired night-laborer claims the entire day. [(\"A hired day-laborer claims the entire night\":) after that day, it being written (Leviticus 19:13): \"There shall not abide the wages of a hired man with you until the morning.\" This cannot be speaking of a hired night-laborer, for hire is paid only at the end (of the working period), it being written (Ibid. 25:53): \"As a hired man, year by year,\" which is expounded: The hire for this year is paid (only) at the beginning of the next year, whence we derive that he (the employer) is not indebted to the day-laborer until sunset. And (Deuteronomy 24:15): \"the sun shall not go down upon it\" must, perforce, apply to a hired night-laborer, the employer not being indebted to him until morning.] A hired hour-laborer claims the entire day and the entire night. [This is what is intended: A hired day hour-laborer claims the entire day; a hired night hour-laborer claims the entire night.] A hired week-laborer, a hired month-laborer, a hired year-laborer, a hired shemitah-laborer — if his hire ended in the day [i.e., in the morning or during the day], he claims the entire day, [and when the sun sets, the employer transgresses: \"There shall not abide, etc.\"]. If his hire ended at night, he claims the entire night and the entire day. [For since his work continued into dark, he is like a hired night-laborer, and he (the employer) does not transgress in the morning until the next day at sunset.]",
+ "\tBoth the hire of a man, the hire of a beast, and the hire of vessels are subsumed in (Deuteronomy 24:15): \"In his (or its) day shall you give his (or its) hire,\" and in (Leviticus 19:13): \"There shall not abide the work of what is hired with you until morning\" [ — everything whose work is with you, even beast and vessels.] When is this so? (that he transgresses) When he claims (his wage). If he does not claim, he does not transgress, [it being written: \"with you\" (i.e., when the \"abiding\" is) by your will, and against his.] If he \"diverted\" him [from himself] to a shopkeeper, [saying: \"Give this worker fruit for a dinar and I will pay\"], or to a money changer, [telling him: \"Give him a dinar in currency\"], he does not transgress, [it being written: \"with you,\" and not if he is diverted to a shopkeeper.] A hired laborer (who claims his wage) in his (appointed) time, swears and takes. [Because the employer is busy with his workers and sometimes thinks that he has given when he has not, they \"took\" the oath from him and imposed it on the laborer.] If the time has passed, he does not swear and take. [Even though the employer is busy with his workers, when the time of indebtedness arrives, it \"weighs\" upon him and he remembers, and the employer is not suspect of transgressing \"There shall not abide.\"] If there are witnesses that he claimed (and was not paid), he swears and takes. A ger-toshav [someone (a non-Jew) who took it upon himself not to serve idolatry, and who eats carrion] is subsumed in \"In his day shall you give his wage,\" but not in \"There shall not abide the wages of a hired man with you until the morning,\" [the verse beginning \"Do not oppress your fellow\" — your fellow (Jew), and not a ger-toshav.]",
+ "\tIf one gave a loan to his neighbor, [and the time came and he did not repay him], he may not take a pledge from him [forcibly, even in the marketplace], except through [a messenger of] beth-din; and he [the messenger of beth-din (and, it goes without saying, the creditor himself)] may not enter his house to take his pledge, it being written (Deuteronomy 24:11): \"Outside shall you stand.\" If he had two vessels, [his debt being against both, and both standing in pledge], he takes one and returns one [when the other needs it. He returns it, and keeps the other with him, viz.:] He returns the pillow at night and the plow in the daytime. And if he (the debtor) dies, he (the creditor) does not return (the pledge) to his heirs, [there being no mitzvah to return it, it being written (Ibid. 13): \"Return shall you return to him the pledge\" — to him, and not to his heirs.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: Even to him (the debtor) himself, he returns it only until thirty days [the time of beth-din], and from the thirtieth day on it is sold in beth-din. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.] A pledge is not taken from a widow, whether she be poor or rich, it being written (Deuteronomy 24:17): \"And you shall not take as a pledge the garment of a widow.\" [Because there is one who holds that it is a poor widow from whom a pledge is not taken, for since you must return it to her, and she comes and goes with you, you give her a bad name with her neighbors — but with a rich one, to whom this does not apply, we might think that a pledge is taken; we must, therefore, be apprised to the contrary, viz.: \"You shall not take the pledge of a widow\" subsumes both a poor and a rich widow.] If one takes a mill as a pledge, he transgresses a negative commandment, and he is liable (individually) for two implements, viz. (Ibid. 6): \"One shall not take as a pledge the nether millstone nor the upper millstone.\" And it is not only nether and upper millstone that were interdicted, but all things which are used for food processing, viz. (Ibid.): \"for it is a soul that he takes as a pledge.\""
+ ],
+ [
+ "\tA house and an upper story belonging to two, [the house belonging to one, and the upper story, to another], which fell — both divide the wood, the stones, and the soil, [it not being recognizable which stones belong to the upper and which to the lower], and we gauge which stones would have been broken. [If the house buckled at its foundation and collapsed, it may be assumed that the lower stones broke; and if the top part of the wall fell outwards, (it may be assumed that) the upper stones were broken, having fallen from a height, and that the lower are intact. As to \"both divide,\" above, this speaks of an instance where the wall fell at night, and the stones were immediately cleared, so that it could not be established whether it fell by buckling and the lower stones broke, or whether it fell by a blow and the upper stones broke.] If one of them recognized some of his stones [and they were intact,], he takes them, and they are deducted from the account, (the other taking whole stones against them.) [(\"he takes them\":) as when the other admits to some of them, and about the others he says: \"I do not know,\" for since he admits to some, he is subject to a Torah oath — but he cannot swear, (not knowing); and whoever is subject to an oath but cannot swear pays. But if he said about all of them: \"I do not know,\" he swears that he does not know and shares equally with his fellow.]",
+ "\tA house and an upper story belonging to two — If the upper story were \"reduced\" [If one rented to another the upper story of his house, saying to him: \"I am renting you the upper story of this house,\" and the upper story were reduced four by four handbreadths, so that if the other wishes to use the upper story, he must do so part above and part below], and the owner of the house did not want to repair it, the upper story dweller goes down and lives below [entirely] until he repairs it for him. [For the landlord bound his house to the upper story, and we do not compel the tenant to live part above and part below.] R. Yossi says: \"The lower supplies the ceiling beams, and the upper, the [clay] paving, [which is placed on the ceiling beams. R. Yossi holds that the paving is a \"hole-evener,\" for which the upper story dweller must provide. And the rabbis hold that the paving is a ceiling straightener, for which the lower story dweller must provide. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
+ "\tA house and an upper story belonging to two, [the house to one and the upper story to the other], which fell — If the owner of the upper story told the owner of the house to build [the wall and the lower ceiling, which he is obliged to build], and he refused, the owner of the upper story builds the house and lives in it until he (the other) pays him his expenses. [He builds the house and the lower ceiling and dwells in it until he recovers his expenses, and then he vacates it and builds his upper story.] R. Yehudah says: This one, too, lives in his neighbor's (dwelling), and he must pay him! [i.e., If so, when the expenses are returned to the upper story dweller, he is found to have lived all of these days in his neighbor's dwelling. And even though the other (the house owner) loses nothing thereby, for he would not have built in any event, still, the upper story dweller benefits; for if not for this house, he would not have a place to live. And R. Yehudah holds that if one benefits from another and the other loses nothing thereby, the first is (nonetheless) liable.] Rather, the upper story dweller builds the house and the upper story, and he roofs in the upper story and dwells in the house until he recovers his expenses. [He dwells in the lower house, and he is not regarded as one benefitting from another, for his upper story is ready for him to live in. And the other (the house owner) loses nothing thereby, for he would not have built it in any event.]",
+ "\tLikewise with an olive-pressing house built into a rock, and a garden on top, [the house belonging to one, and the garden to the other] — If it (the roof of the house) were \"reduced\" four by four hand-breadths, so that it cannot be sown as before], the owner of the garden goes down and sows below (in the house) until he makes a vaulted roof for his house, [on which the garden owner can place soil and sow.] If one's wall or tree fell into the public domain and caused damage, he is not liable to pay. [For what could he have done? He was taken unawares.] If they [beth-din] gave him time [thirty days] to cut down the tree or tear down the wall, and they fell within that time, he is not liable; if after that time, he is liable.",
+ "\tIf one's wall adjoined his neighbor's garden and it fell (into it), and he (the garden owner) said to him: \"Clear out your stones,\" and the other said to him: \"They are yours!\" — he is not heeded. [If the garden owner does not wish it, he does not acquire them, and the wall owner must clear them out.] If after he (the garden owner) took it upon himself (to clear them out), the other said to him: \"Here are your expenses, and I will take what is mine\" (i.e., the stones), he is not heeded. If one hired a laborer to work with him in straw and stubble [to gather his own or that of hefker (ownerless property)], and he said to him: \"Give me my wage,\" and he answered: \"Take what you have worked with as your wage,\" he is not heeded. [Even though what is worth money is always regarded as money, this is not so with a hired laborer, it being written in that regard (Leviticus 19:13): \"There shall not abide the wages of a hired man,\" the implication being that what was stipulated must be given.] If he (the worker) accepted it, and then he said to him: \"Take your wage and I will take what is mine,\" he is not heeded. If one takes out dung to the public domain, the other must be ready to carry it out (to the field) for fertilizer, and he may not allow it to remain there.] Clay is not steeped in the public domain, and bricks are not glazed (there), but clay is kneaded in the public domain [to be placed immediately into the building], but not bricks. If one builds in the public domain, he who brings stones brings, and he who builds, builds. [He receives them immediately from the one who brings them and he builds.], and if he causes damage (thereby), he pays for the damage. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: He may even ready (his materials) [in the public domain] every thirty days, [and he is not liable for damages. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.]",
+ "\tTwo gardens [of two men, close to each other], one atop the other, [one on high ground; the other, on lower ground], and greens in the middle [on a slant] — R. Meir says: (The greens belong) to the upper, [it being his soil, and (the greens) being nourished thereby.] R. Yehudah says: (They belong) to the lower, [partaking, as they do, of his \"atmosphere.\"] R. Meir said: If the upper wished to take away his soil, there would be no greens here. R. Yehudah said: If the lower wished to \"fill up\" his garden, there would be no greens here. R. Meir said: Since both can prevent [these greens from being here; the upper, by taking away his soil, and the lower, by filling up his garden], we see from where these greens live [i.e., whence they are nourished and grow, and they are given to him (to the owner of that land)]. R. Shimon said: Wherever the upper can stretch forth his hand and take, it belongs to him, [as per R. Meir, viz.: \"since it lives from his soil\"]; and the rest belongs to the lower, [the upper (owner) himself rendering it hefker (ownerless) to the lower, it being demeaning to him to ask permission to enter his neighbor's domain in order to take it. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon.]"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Mishnah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7953a7c7b5e10fbdef92197792f9965106cd615
--- /dev/null
+++ b/json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json
@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+{
+ "language": "en",
+ "title": "Mishnah Bava Metzia",
+ "versionSource": "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1",
+ "versionTitle": "William Davidson Edition - English",
+ "status": "locked",
+ "priority": 2.0,
+ "license": "CC-BY-NC",
+ "versionNotes": "English from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz",
+ "shortVersionTitle": "Koren - Steinsaltz",
+ "actualLanguage": "en",
+ "languageFamilyName": "english",
+ "isBaseText": false,
+ "isSource": false,
+ "direction": "ltr",
+ "heTitle": "משנה בבא מציעא",
+ "categories": [
+ "Mishnah",
+ "Seder Nezikin"
+ ],
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "The early commentaries ask why this chapter, which discusses details of the halakhot of found items, precedes the second chapter, which discusses the fundamental halakhot of found items.