Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud for Makkot 1:1

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:

How 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.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian21He is R. Immi (Ammi), the head of the Tiberian academy after R. Joḥanan. His statement is quoted in the Babli (Ketubot 35a) by Abbai, one generation after R. Immi. in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases22Num. 35:31: “Do not take weregild for the life of a human who is a criminal condemned to death.”, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging23Deut. 25:2: “If the criminal is condemned to flogging, …”. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

HALAKHAH: “One who prophesies in the name of foreign worship,” etc. 112This paragraph is thoroughly corrupt; the meaning can be understood approximately by reference to Tosephta 14:13: “He who prophesies to uproot one of the words of the Torah is punishable. Rebbi Simeon says, if he prophesies to uproot one of the words of the Torah but affirms others he cannot be prosecuted; but about foreign worship, even if he endorses it today but reneges tomorrow he is punishable.”
With Qorban Haˋedah it seems that the quote from the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:16) was induced by the parallel text at the beginning of the next Halakhah and should be replaced by Deut. 18:22. The argument would go as follows: In Deut. 18:20–22, the court is commanded to punish the false prophet by a death sentence. The manner of execution is not specified; this implies that it must be by strangling. But in 13:2–12 the punishment of strange worship (idolatry) is stoning.
A person can be punished as a false prophet only if first he had established his credentials as a prophet by a sign or a miracle (Deut. 13:2, 18:22; Note 106). Then if the prophet argues for idolatry, even if he does not abolish any commandment of the Torah, he has to be punished (even if he propagates foreign worship in the name of the Eternal; Babli 89b). If he tells others not to obey some of the precepts of the Torah, for the Sages he is punishable, but not for R. Simeon. The prophet can be prosecuted only if he induces others to neglect Torah precepts, not if he himself seemingly violates them by Divine Command, as Elijah did on Mount Carmel, sacrificing on an altar which was authorized only for him.
Qorban Haˋedah gives a reconstruction of the paragraph which is not impossible but not supported by any parallel evidence.
In the word פיונטײה the ending יֵהּ is the possessive suffix “his”. For the remaining פיונטי the best available conjecture is Kohut’s, Latin punitio, -onis “punishment” [or poenaria (actiones), punishable (actions) (E. G.)].
Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. It came to judge whether by sign, or by miracle, whether about foreign worship or any other commandment. But about foreign worship, whether he intended to uproot the entire body or did not intend to uproot the entire body, by the words of Rebbi Simeon one does not prosecute him, but by the words of the Sages one stones him. For any other commandment by the words of the Sages one stones him, by the words of Rebbi Simeon he should understand his pywnṭ.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Full ChapterNext Verse