Talmud for Ketubot 3:1

אֵלּוּ נְעָרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן קְנָס. הַבָּא עַל הַמַּמְזֶרֶת, וְעַל הַנְּתִינָה, וְעַל הַכּוּתִית. הַבָּא עַל הַגִּיּוֹרֶת, וְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה, וְעַל הַשִּׁפְחָה, שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְשֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ פְּחוּתוֹת מִבְּנוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד. הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה, יֵשׁ לָהֶן קְנָס. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בְּהִכָּרֵת, אֵין בָּהֶן מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין:

These are the maidens [who, although unfit (pasul, receive knass (the penalty payment). If a man forced one of them, he gives her father fifty kesef.]: one who lives with a mamzereth, a Nethinah, [one of the Giveonites. Because Joshua made them (nathnam) hewers of wood and drawers of water, they were called "Nethinim," and they are forbidden to enter the congregation.], and a Cuthite [This tanna holds that Cuthites are "lion proselytes" and are regarded as gentiles], one who lives with a proselyte, a captive woman, or a bondswoman who had been redeemed, proselytized, and freed when they were less than three years and one day old. [For they are assumed to have been virgins (when he lived with them). For even if they had been lived with in their captivity or when they were gentiles, their virginal signs return.] If one lives with his sister, his father's sister, his mother's sister, his wife's sister, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother [if she were betrothed to one of them and was divorced during betrothal and was still a virgin], or a niddah, they receive knass. [For] even though they are subject to kareth, they are not subject to judicial death penalty. [Kareth does not exempt one from payment. This is so when there was no fore-warning (hathra'ah), but if there was, he is exempt from knass, the ruling being that all those liable to kareth who are fore-warned receive stripes, and one does not both receive stripes and pay.]

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah

The practice of Mercurius is the following: Two stones one touching the other and the third on top of them⁵This does not mean that the third stone lies vertically on top of the other two since this is a very unstable arrangement. It must be that the third stone forms a triangle together with the others; then the third stone is on the altitude of the triangle which is at a right angle to, i. e. “on”, the base line.. If one put down the second one and they warned him because of “it and its young”⁶Lev. 22:28. The text is very elliptic here; it is explained by the following quote from Terumot.
A person is starting to build a rudimentary Mercurius. When he had put down the second stone he decided to sacrifice to the yet unfinished idol and he chose for this purpose an animal and its young. As explained in Sanhedrin, a criminal conviction in rabbinic theory is possible only if criminal intent was proven by the testimony of two eye witnesses that the perpetrator had duly been warned of the criminal nature of his intended act. Also, for one act there can be only one punishment. Slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is a simple criminal infraction for which no punishment is spelled out in the biblical text. The prescribed punishment for such an act is flogging., he is whipped. Because of idolatry he is stoned⁷One has to read “is not stoned”. Since two stones do not make an idol, even if there was criminal intent no crime was committed.. If he put down the third⁸Then there is an idol and even though it is worshipped by throwing an additional stone, anything which would be part of the service in the Temple when done for an idol is a capital crime whether or not the idol is worshipped in this way.; there is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. ⁹This text to the end of the paragraph is from Terumot7:1 Notes 64–66; Ketubot3:1 (27c l.21). For they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young he is flogged, about idolatry he is stoned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he is cautioned about an animal and its young he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he be cautioned about idolatry.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma

MISHNAH: He who stole according to the testimony of two people²¹To recover stolen property is a civil matter and is judged according to civil law. But for the owners to collect double, quadruple, or quintuple restitution requires a criminal conviction of the thief which can be based only on the testimony of at least two eye witnesses to the act. and slaughtered or sold according to their testimony or the testimony of two others, has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. He who stole and sold on the Sabbath²²This is forbidden but in itself is not a capital crime which would preempt the imposition of a fine. But if he slaughtered on the Sabbath he committed a capital crime and could not be sentenced to a fine; cf. Chapter 6, Note 102., stole and sold to pagan worship²³As long as he does not himself participate in pagan worship, no capital crime has been committed., stole and slaughtered on the Day of Atonement²⁴The punishment for this deadly sin is left to Heaven, not the human court., stole from his father, slaughtered, or sold, and then his father died,²⁵Even though he is an heir, he has to pay to his co-heirs their share in the fine payable to the estate. stole, slaughtered, and then dedicated it to the Temple²⁶Since he already was subject to the fine when he dedicated, the dedication cannot erase the liability., has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. He who stole and slaughtered for medical purposes or for the dogs, he who slaughtered and it turned out torn²⁷On inspection the animal was found to be sick and the meat unfit for human consumption., he who slaughtered a profane animal in the Temple courtyard²⁸The slaughtered animal is forbidden for any use., has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi Simeon frees from liability in these two cases²⁹He holds that slaughter which does not prepare meat for human consumption technically is called “killing” rather than “slaughter” and is not covered by the rule of Ex. 21:37..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma

HALAKHAH: “One who stole and slaughtered on the Sabbath,” etc. ²⁹He holds that slaughter which does not prepare meat for human consumption technically is called “killing” rather than “slaughter” and is not covered by the rule of Ex. 21:37. Did not Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he is intentional error about fat but in error about a sacrifice, he can be warned, is whipped, and brings a sacrifice. Who stated it⁵⁷The statement in the Mishnah that the thief does not pay multiple restitution for slaughter or sale after dedication.? [Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated]⁵⁸Added from E supported by a Genizah fragment.: “Rebbi Simeon says, for sancta for which he is liable by a warranty he has to pay quadruple or quintuple⁵⁹Since these are not Heaven’s property., but if there is no warranty, he is not liable.”⁶⁰The argument is rejected in the Babli which holds that R. Simeon docs not at all address the problem of the Mishnah (76a–78a).

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Demai

Rebbi Taypha the Red⁹⁷An Amora of the fourth generation, student of R. Abbahu and sometimes mentioned in connection with the Amora R. Yose. in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Samaritans can be trusted with deposits. Is that not the Mishnah: “With a Samaritan”? Our Mishnah before they became suspect, he comes to tell us even after they became suspect⁹⁸The Yerushalmi always refers the question whether Samaritans are counted as Jews or as Gentiles to the disagreement between Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and his son Rebbi, as reported below. However, it is stated in ‘Avodah zarah 5:3, fol. 44d (quoted in Babli Ḥulin 6a) that in the times of Rebbis Ammi, Assi, and Abbahu, Samaritans were found to use Gentile wine (or to adopt Gentile behavior), and from that moment on Samaritans were considered as Gentiles. However it seems from the Yerushalmi that up to the end of the Talmudic period in Galilee, the separation of Jews and Samaritans was not universally accepted. (One also may assume that parts of Jewish Sadducee communities changed to a Samaritan affiliation after the destruction of the Temple.). How is it, should he be trusted to say, I took it and replaced it by other deposits that were put in order? If you believe him in that he took it, you should believe him in what he gave. If you do not believe that he took, do not believe that he gave⁹⁹In the Tosephta (Demay 4:22), this argument is given in reference to deposits with an am haäreẓ.. You believe a Samaritan that he gave¹⁰⁰Grain from another source, but you do not believe him that he exchanged. In the Tosephta (Demay4:24) one reads: “If he says, I took it and replaced it with some that was put in order, one does not worry either about tithes or about the Sabbatical.” and you do not believe that he took. Rebbi Jonah asked: What are we talking about? If he says, they are my own, even an am haäreẓ should not be trusted. If he says, X¹⁰¹A person recognized as a ḥaver. took tithes for me, even the Samaritan should be believed. Rebbi Abba said, explain it according to him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile. As they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Full Chapter Next Verse