Talmud sobre Sotá 9:17

³¹Gen. rabba 63(4), 92(2), Ex. rabba 22(3), Midrash Psalms 5(11). Zavdai ben Levai, and Rebbi Yose bar Petrus, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said three verses when they expired. One of them said, for this every pious one should pray to You³²Ps. 32:6. etc. And one said, all who rely on You will enjoy³³Ps. 5:12. etc. And one said, how great is Your bounty which You did hide for those who fear You³⁴Ps. 31:20. etc.

Moses instituted seven days of a marriage feast⁶⁸The week-long wedding feast of Jacob and Leah, Gen. 29:27. But in the interpretation of Nahmanides, the Yerushalmi refers to an oral tradition going back to Moses, without reference to biblical verses. Sforno sees in Gen. 29:21 a biblical justification for R. Mattaniah’s procedure (Note 24). In Yalqut Šim’oni II, 70, in a note attributed to Pirqe R.Eliezer (not in the surviving text): “The seven days of a wedding feast we learned from Jacob and Simson (Jud. 14:12).” and seven days of mourning⁶⁹The week-long mourning for Jacob, Gen. 50:10. Since this mourning was held before the burial, it cannot be the real paradigm for the rabbinic mourning period which starts after burial., but he instituted nothing for the widow. Even though you say that he instituted nothing for the widow, she needs a benediction⁷⁰The “Seven Benedictions” without which the final marriage ceremony cannot be held. The same argument in the Babli, 7a, as an Amoraic statement.. From Boaz, as it is written⁷¹Ruth 4:2.: “And (Boaz)⁷²Not in the biblical text, implied by v. 4:1; is also in Ruth rabba 4(7). took ten men of the city Elders and said, sit here, and they sat down.” Rebbi Alexander said, ⁷³This and the following statements are also in Ruth rabba4(7). from here [one learns that] the lesser person is not permitted to sit down until the more important person⁷⁴Since Boaz was of the family of the princes of Judah, Ruth 4:21; cf. the author’s Commentary to Seder ‘Olam(Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 124–125. tells him to sit down. Rebbi Phineas said, from here [one learns that] this family⁷⁵The descendants of King David. appoints Elders for their marriage feasts. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, from here [one learns that] the wedding blessing needs ten people [present]⁷⁶In contrast to the preliminary marriage ceremony which requires only the presence of two witnesses.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy said, not only a bachelor marrying a virgin, but also a widower marrying a widow, since Boaz was a widower and Ruth a widow, as it is written⁷⁷Ruth 1:19. The same argument in the Babli, Baba batra 91a; Ruth rabba 3(6). “The entire city was in an uproar because of them.” Is that possible that the entire town was in alarm because of the sorry state of Naomi? But Boaz’s wife had died that very day and when all the people went to the burial, Ruth and Naomi entered. It turned out that when one left, the other entered.

“And also one goes to inspect for kilaim⁸Graves not in a cemetery, which must be clearly marked so ritually pure pilgrims will not be contaminated accidentally and then prevented from completing their pilgrimage. The whitewash characterizing these graves may have been damaged during the rainy season..” Did they not already go in Adar? Explain it if the year was late and the plants not recognizable.

MISHNAH: Whipping by three [judges]; in the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, by 23¹⁰⁷The imposition of corporal punishment needs an official court of duly ordained judges. The Mishnah is a reconstruction of what was assumed to be the historic procedure; R. Ismael lived about 70 years after the removal of criminal jurisdiction from Jewish courts and R. Meïr, represented by the anonymous opinion, more than 100 years afterwards. But the prescription of the Mishnah certainly was followed by the autonomous Jewish courts under the Parthians.. The lengthening of a month by three [judges]¹⁰⁸Whether a thirtieth day should be counted for the current month. Fixing the calendar was the sole privilege of a committee of the Patriarch’s court as a successor to the Synhedrion. The current computed calendar was promulgated by such a court in the middle of the Fourth Century (Eruvin 3:11 21c l. 24)., the intercalation of a year by three [judges]¹⁰⁹In the current calendar, the addition of 30 days to the lunar year, labelled as “First Adar.”, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one starts with three, one discusses with five, and one votes with seven¹¹⁰A committe of three has to decide whether the year be a candidate for intercalation; an enlarged committe of five has to do the detailed computations; a further enlarged committee of seven has to confirm the computations. Intercalated months in the lunar year are necessary to keep Passover in the “month of spring” as required by Ex. 13:4.
There is no basic disagreement between R. Meïr and Rabban Simeon, since the latter agrees that in an emergency situation, a duly empowered committee of three is competent. Since Rabban Simeon was the Patriarch of the restauration during the second half of the Second Century, his procedure was the one actually used.. But if they voted with three, it is intercalated.
The leaning of Elders²²⁰Lev. 4:15. If the High Court realized that they had erred in a ruling and permitted something which is biblically prohibited, they have to bring a purification sacrifice and a deputation of the Court has to lean with their hands on the head of the sacrificial animal while confessing their error, as detailed in Traxtate Horaiot. and the breaking of the calf’s neck²²¹The ritual of atonement for an unsolved murder, Deut. 21:1–9, Soţah Chapter 9. by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Simeon, but Rebbi Jehudah says, by five. Ḥalîṣah²²²The ceremony by which the widow of a childless man is freed from levirate marriage, which requires involvement of “the Elders”, Deut. 25:5–9. and repudiations²²³The repudiation of a marriage by an underage girl, married off by her mother or brothers after her father’s death and whose marriage during her minority is valid only rabbinically; cf. Yebamot Chapter 13. by three [judges], [redemption of] the growth of the fourth year²²⁴The fruits of a tree in the fourth year after planting, the first year they are permitted as food, have to be eaten in holiness by the rules of Second Tithe (Lev.19:24; Maˋaser Šeni Chapter 5). They may be redeemed under the rules of Second Tithe, the sanctity being transferred to the redemption money. and Second Tithe²²⁵Cf. Maˋaser Šeni 4:2, Note 51. Second Tithe remains the farmer’s property but must be eaten in purity at the site of the Temple. If there is any danger of spoilage in transport, the produce may be redeemed and the sanctity transferred to the redemption money, Deut. 14:22–26; cf. Introduction to Tractate Maˋaser Šeni. whose value is not known by three [appraisers], also of Temple dedications²²⁶Property donated to the Temple which will be sold by the Temple treasurer upon appraisal by a committee of three; Lev.27:11. by three. Estimations of movables²²⁷If a person makes a vow to donate the estimated value of a person to the Temple, the amount payable is specified in Lev.27:2–7 depending on age and sex. If the person wants to pay with movables in lieu of money, their value has to be determined by a committee of three. These rules are detailed in Tractate ˋArakhin. by three [appraisers], Rebbi Jehudah says that one of them must be a Cohen; of real estate²²⁸Lev. 27:14–25. In all verses speaking of redemption of property donated to the Temple, ‘the Cohen” is mentioned in the singular. nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans²²⁹Somebody promising to pay to the Temple the value a person would fetch if sold as a slave..
Capital crimes [are judged] by 23. The participants in active or passive bestiality²⁵⁹Whether human or animal; the additional statement is needed only for the animal. [is judged] by 23, as it is said, you shall slay the woman and the animal²⁶⁰Lev. 20:16. Since woman and animal are mentioned together, the animal can be condemned only by a court empowered to judge the woman who had sex with the animal., and it says, and you shall slay the animal²⁶¹Lev. 20:15, about male bestiality.. The bull to be stoned²⁶²Which had killed a human. [is judged] by 23, as it is said, the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die²⁶³Ex. 21:29.; like the owner’s death sentence so is the ox’s death sentence. The wolf and the lion, the bear, and the tiger, and the panther, and the snake are sentenced to death by 23²⁶⁴He does not need permission; it is no case for a court.. Rebbi Eliezer says, anyone quick to kill them is meritorious²⁶⁵End of Halakhah 1, Notes 103–106.; Rebbi Aqiba says, they are sentenced by 23.

²⁰⁵Babli 11a, Tosephta 2:8. The Tosephta here follows the Yerushalmi text, which allows for a “month”, i. e., either 29 or 30 days. The Babli prescribes 30 days; it notes 29 as permissible only for Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (II). The computed calendar in this matter follows the Babli.“One intercalates a year neither less than a month, nor more than a month; if it was intercalated²⁰⁶For a different number of days., it is not intercalated.”

HALAKHAH: “One testifies only on the appearance of the face,” etc. Rav Jehudah said, the nose with the mandibles⁴⁰Reading of ms. A. Editio princeps: רב.. This follows what Rebbi⁴¹This is the reading of both sources. One might except that the reading should be “Rav”, referring to Rav’s colleague in Babylonia rather than to a Galilean Amora some 100 years later. However, in the Babli, the same argument and verse are quoted by Abbai and/or Rav Cahana II, one generation after Rebbi Jeremiah. Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: “The recognition of their faces testified about them⁴²Is. 3:9.,” that is the nose. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if somebody does not want to be recognized, he should put a patch⁴³Greek σπλήνιον, Latin splenium, cf. ‘Orlah 3:1, Note 20. on his nostrils, then he will not be recognized. As in the following⁴⁴This is an editorial comment, on what happened some 50 years after R. Ḥiyya bar Abba’s death. The same text appears in Soṭah 9:3.: In the times of king Ursicinus⁴⁵The legate of Caesar Gallus in Palestine, about the year 350. His oppressive regime lead to a revolt centered in Sepphoris., some people from Sepphoris were under arrest warrants. They put patches on their nostrils and were not recognized. Finally they were denunciated and all caught because of lies.

When Rav descended there⁷⁸“There” always means Babylonia; going to Babylonia is “descending,” going to the Land of Israel is “ascending.” The story appears in the same context in Babli Sotah 45a, the actor being Abbaie, three generations after Rav; the Yerushalmi version is also in Sota 9:2., he declared: I am this place’s Ben Azai⁷⁹Ben Azai, one of the most outstanding students of Rebbi Aqiba, was a walking encyclopedia and used to stroll through the markets of Tiberias, ready to immediately answer any question of Jewish learning. He died during mystical studies before he could marry R. Aqiba’s daughter. In the Talmudim, several sages are reported to have tried to imitate Ben Azai but all of them were quickly confronted with a question for which they gave the wrong answer or did not know any answer at all. The story is inserted here because a few paragraphs down hidden sheaves will be discussed.. There came an old man and asked him, two slain people, one on top of the other⁸⁰This refers to Deut. 21:1–9, about the purification ceremony when a person is found murdered and the murderer is not found. Then a calf’s neck is broken in a ravine not used for agriculture.? Rav was of the opinion that one breaks the neck. He told him, one does not break the neck. He asked him, why? He said to him, not the lower one for he is hidden⁸¹The relevant verse is Deut. 21:1: “If a corpse is found on the land the Eternal, your God, gives to you.…” The lower body is not “found”; he is only discovered when the other body is removed. The upper body is not found on the land., not the upper one because he floats. When he ascended here, he came to Rebbi, who told him: He told you correctly, “if he is found,” and not “if they are found.”

How does Rebbi Ismael explain the verse? ⁷²Lev. 5:4. The causative refers to the future.Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. A general statement followed by a detail; the general statement contains only what is in the detail. But the detail only contains matters of causing evil or good! But it is so: To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A detail followed by a general statement, everything is included; this adds matters directed towards the past. But it is so: Or a person, if he would swear blurting out with his lips, a general statement. To cause evil or cause good, a detail. Anything which a person will blurt out, a general statement. A general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement, you only argue in the pattern of the detail⁸³In the version of Sifra(Introduction1), in the list of the thirteen hermeneutical principles of R. Ismael one finds (5) a general statement followed by a detail, (6) a detail followed by a general statement, (7) a general statement followed by a detail followed by a general statement you only argue following the pattern of the detail, (8) a general statement dependent on the detail, (9) a detail dependent on the general statement. Rules 8 and 9 mean that if the general statement can only be understood by the detail or vice versa, rules 5 and 6 do not apply. It then is explained in §7 that if a general statement is followed by a detail, only the detail is intended. §8: If a detail is followed by a general statement, the general statement adds to the detail. Examples are Lev. 1:2: From animals, from cattle, or from small cattle. This implies that sacrifices are restricted to cattle, sheep, or goats. Ex. 22:9: A donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal. The rules of caretakers apply to any animal. Then it becomes a problem how to treat a verse which contains general statement, detail, general statement, whether to apply rule 5 (eliminating the final general statement by rule 9), or rule 6 (eliminating the first general statement by rule 8), or rule 7. In the preceding derivation, the arguments have been suppressed that rules 8 and 9 do not apply and, therefore, only rule 7 is relevant. The standard example for an application of rule 7 is Deut. 14:26, about permitted uses of Second Tithe money at the place of the Sanctuary: You may spend the money for anything you desire(general), for cattle, or small cattle, or wine, or liquor(detail), or anything you wish(general). The common denominator of the items in the detail describes animal or vegetable food; Second Tithe money can be used for any food derived from animals (generated from semen) or plants (growing from seeds).
Since the first part of Lev. 5:4 fits Rule 7, it is clear that the rule applies not only to oaths intended to cause good or evil but to a larger set of oaths which, however, have to conform to the idea underlying “causing good or bad things”. Obviously one of the ideas is that events caused are later in time than the cause. This is R. Ismael’s interpretation of the verse. Babli 26a.. Since the detail is explicit, matters of causing evil or good, from where matters not causing evil or good? ⁸⁴Quote from the Mishnah.“He answered him, from the additional text of the verse^73,The continuation of the quote, anything which a person will blurt out in an oath, which seems to be superfluous since the sentence starts: Or a person who would swear blurting out with his lips. The addition indicates that the verse should not be interpreted narrowly. Cf. Note 83.⁸⁵This is not an additional argument. The additional text shows that the rule to be applied is rule 7, not rule 5. R. Aqiba follows a different system. For him the sentence structure is not general, detail, general but expansive, restrictive, expansive, which he reads as including everything except what is completely different from the detail quoted as restriction.. He answered, just as the verse added for this, the verse added for the other⁸⁶The text of R. Aqiba’s answer is the text of the Mishnah in the Babli. It is known that the separate Mishnah in the Yerushalmi is not from the Yerushalmi text. The Mishnah text in Maimonides’s autograph is that of the separate Yerushalmi Mishnah..” You cannot⁸⁷The Mishnah cannot be quoted as proof that R. Ismael conceded to R. Aqiba., as Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So did Rebbi Ismael¹¹Who is R. Aqiba’s opponent. All of Mishnah 1 is R. Aqiba’s teaching. R. Ismael opposes adding backward looking oaths as blurted oaths. answer Rebbi Aqiba. Do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath but if in oblivion because of a blurted oath¹²A future directed oath, where it cannot be verified instantly whether it will be kept or violated, is an actionless crime and cannot be prosecuted (cf. Note 3). The preconditions of a sacrifice for a blurted oath negate the possibility of judicial penalties.? Could he not have objected, do we find cases where one is liable for intentional action because of a false oath and he has to bring a sacrifice¹³If R. Aqiba did accept R. Joḥanan’s argument, it would be possible for a person to be flogged for violating the prohibition of perjury (Lev. 19:12) and still be liable for a sacrifice. This would make R. Ismael’s objection irrelevant.? He said to him⁸⁸R. Aqiba to R. Ismael., do you agree that there are cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, even if they are not written⁸⁹Since they are not mentioned in the verse. For לי נן read לֵי[ת אִי]נֻּן.? He told him⁹⁰R. Ismael to R. Aqiba., even though I accept cases which are not matters of causing evil or good, are they only written if they be matters of causing evil or good⁹¹It is obvious from rule 7 that the obligation of a variable sacrifice for a blurted oath must hold for a larger set than “causing bad or good things”. The only problem is to define this larger set and the causative employed definitively excludes oaths regarding the past. The Tanna of the Mishnah cannot accept R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rules.? Therefore never for the past⁹²Since the oath is void, he is prevented from sacrificing if it was unintentional. If it was intentional he can be prosecuted for a vain oath, forbidden in the Ten Commandments..

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah¹⁷⁴Which states that Joḥanan the High Priest abolished the recitation of the declaration. He held that people who do not follow the rules cannot make the declaration and giving tithe to Cohanim breaks the rules. In order not to be inquisitive he let nobody recite. after the people were suspected of giving tithe to Cohanim. There is support for Rebbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated¹⁷⁵Mishnah Yebamot 9:6. In the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, one speaks about the daughter of a Cohen preliminarily married to a Levite, who has lost her Cohen status and not yet acquired Levitic status. In the interpretation of the Babli (Yebamot86a) which holds that tithes should regularly be given to Cohanim, the Mishnah is explained away: The daughter of a Cohen married to a Levite may eat tithes but she cannot receive tithes from an Israel as a precaution since an Israel woman married to a Cohen should not accept heave or tithe from an Israel since we are afraid her husband might die without issue and then she would be barred from heave and tithes.: “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave¹⁷⁶Since legally she is married; cf. Peah 6, Note 46.. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself¹⁷⁷If R. Joḥanan considers the Mishnah contrary to his position, he must hold that Cohanim may receive tithe according to biblical law. says one gives heave to Cohanim.

If they intended to appoint Elders, from where do they appoint? From Tiberias or from the South³²⁴The main Academy was at Tiberias in Galilee. There were minor centers of learning in the South, at Lydda and at Kefar Darom, in the plain which in Second Temple times was part of Judea. The question was which center of learning should be the first to propose candidates for ordination by the Patriarch.? Rebbi Simon said, Jehudah shall go first³²⁵Jud. 1:2. R. Simon came from the South.. Rebbi Mana said to him, this refers to war. But for ordination, those who see the face of the king, sitting first in government³²⁶Esther 1:14. The preeminent rabbis at this time were in Tiberias..

HALAKHAH: ¹³⁹The text in brackets is from G. Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 15. The text in parentheses is from the Leiden ms. The correct quote of the Mishnah is in G.[They⁶⁸The feminine form of the verb is confirmed by the readings of Maimonides and Rashi, as well as the Munich ms. of the Babli. In the Babli, the question is raised whether the homicide (reading מעלים) pays rent or his hometown (reading מעלות) pays indemnity to the Levites in either the city of refuge or the 42 additional Levitic cities which also serve as cities of asylum. Since neither Sifry nor the Yerushalmi mention this, it seems that the Yerushalmi recognizes only the six cities of refuge as proper places of asylum. were paying rent to the Levites.] ¹⁴⁰Maˋaser Šeni 5:8, Notes 165–167. The question is whether individual houses in Levitic cities were private or tribal property, as explained there. Even though three sources (the Leiden ms. here and in Maˋaser Šeni and G here) confirm the text “R. Yose said, they were given as dwellings” one must read “R. Meïr”, as shown. R. Yose holds with R. Jehudah in Mishnah Maˋaser Šeni 5:9. In the Babli (13a) it is held that the six cities of refuge were tribal property; for the other 42 Levitic cities the dispute is not resolved. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, they were given to be distributed. Rebbi Yose said, they were given as dwellings. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Meïr follows his own opinion as we have stated: “They⁶⁸The feminine form of the verb is confirmed by the readings of Maimonides and Rashi, as well as the Munich ms. of the Babli. In the Babli, the question is raised whether the homicide (reading מעלים) pays rent or his hometown (reading מעלות) pays indemnity to the Levites in either the city of refuge or the 42 additional Levitic cities which also serve as cities of asylum. Since neither Sifry nor the Yerushalmi mention this, it seems that the Yerushalmi recognizes only the six cities of refuge as proper places of asylum. were paying rent to the Levites, the words of Rebbi (Meïr) [Jehudah]. Rebbi (Jehudah) [Meïr] said, they were not paying rent to the Levites.”

⁴⁷⁶Babli Zevaḥim115b, Tosefta Zevaḥim 13:1.“Everything is brought on an altar⁴⁷⁷A private altar when it is legitimate. The detailed rules of sacrifices spelled out in Lev. are valid only for places of public worship., domestic and wild animals⁴⁷⁸On a public altar only cattle, sheep and goats are permitted., large and small birds⁴⁷⁹On a public altar only pigeons and turtle doves are permitted., male and female⁴⁸⁰By the rules of Lev. 1:3,10, an elevation sacrifice can only be a male animal., whole [but not] (and)⁴⁸¹Clearly the text of the [corrector] is the only acceptable one. defective, pure⁴⁸²Kosher animals and birds, Lev. 11. but not impure. All are brought as elevation sacrifice and do not need stripping and partitioning⁴⁸³In the Babylonian sources (Note 476): they need stripping (remove the hide) and partitioning.. Gentiles today are permitted to do this.” From where male and female? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: and the cows they offered as elevation offering to the Eternal.⁴⁸⁴1S. 6:14, referring to the cows which drew the cart on which the Philistines returned the Ark to Bet Shemesh. Since the place at Shilo was inactive without the Ark in the Tabernacle, it was a time when private altars were permitted. From where whole [but not] (and)⁴⁸¹Clearly the text of the [corrector] is the only acceptable one. defective? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Eleazar made it clear to the colleagues, from all living, from integer flesh⁴⁸⁵Gen. 6:19. The animal must be complete from the outside. It does not need inspection of its internal organs as required for kosher consumption of the meat or as sacrifice on a public altar. Babli Zevaḥim 116a., that they should be complete in their limbs. Plucked? Rebbi Eleazar made it clear, any bird, any wing⁴⁸⁶Gen. 7:14. If the feathers are removed, the bird has no more wings., to exclude plucked ones. From where pure but not impure? Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: Noah pondered a lesson from the Torah. He said, it already was said to me, like vegetables from the field I gave you everything⁴⁸⁷Gen.9:3. While Adam was created as a vegetarian (Gen. 1:29), Noah was told to be an omnivore.. Why did Scripture increase the pure ones? For sacrifices. And Gentiles today are permitted to do this. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, it is forbidden to a Jew to help him and it is forbidden to become his agent⁴⁸⁸Since private altars were forbidden after the building of the Temple, Jews cannot be involved in any way in building or serving such an altar. Babli Zevaḥim 116b..