Talmud sur Ketoubot 3:14

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.

By money, from where? “After he acquires,” this tells you that she is acquired by money.¹¹Babli 2a. In rabbinic Hebrew, לקח means “to buy”. The Babli shows from Gen. 23:13 that לקח in biblical Hebrew may mean “to accept a deal involving money”. By the talmudic doctrine of invariability of lexemes in biblical language, the same meaning must apply in all cases. By marital relations, from where? “And has marital relations with her,” this tells you that she is acquired by intercourse¹²Babli 9b. Deut. 24:1: “After a man takes a wife and has marital relations with her” is the preamble to the rules of divorce. The verse is read to mean: “After a man buys and/or has marital relations with a woman, if he desires to terminate the relationship he is required to follow the rules of divorce.” Since there is no divorce without a preceding marriage, it follows that acquiring a wife by money and/or intercourse establishes marriage by biblical standards.. I would say, by both together. Money without intercourse and intercourse without money, from where? ¹³This elliptic statement is shortened from Ketubot 3:6 (Notes 88–92). The man who sleeps with a virgin preliminarily married to another man is stoned; one who sleeps with a married woman who is not a virgin is strangled. Since the verse mentions only intercourse, it is deduced that even if no money was given, the girl is legally bound to her husband and the seducer or rapist is executed for adultery. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is written: “If a man is found lying with a woman having had intercourse with her husband.” Think of it, even if he did only acquire her by intercourse, the one coming after him is [executed] by strangulation. Not only regular intercourse but even perverse¹⁴Sex play which leads to satisfaction without penetration and ejaculation.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband¹⁵If the verse was simply intended to state that the punishment of the adulterer with a non-virgin is different from that with a virgin, it would not have mentioned “her husband”. The husband makes his wife a non-virgin even by perverse intercourse, any other man only by penetration.? As we have stated there¹⁶Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:15.: “If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled¹⁷If the first one penetrated her..”

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..

MISHNAH: Loss of earnings. One considers him as if he were a watchman of pumpkins since he already compensated him for the loss of his hand or loss of his foot²⁸Once long-term disability has been compensated for, short term inability to work has to be compensated on the level of his remaining long term earning power.. Embarrassment. Everything depends on the person embarrassing and the one embarrassed²⁹The lower the social standing of the agressor, the more weighty is his insult. The higher the social standing of the victim, the more damaging is the insult.. One who embarrassed a naked person³⁰Who is in an embarrassing situation., or embarrassed a blind person³¹Who cannot see the reaction of others to his embarrassment., or embarrassed a sleeping person³²Who does not notice his embarrassment. is liable, but the sleeper who embarrassed is not liable. If a person fell from a roof and caused damage and embarrassed, he is liable for the damage but not liable for the embarrassment since is was said³³Deut. 25:11.: “She reached out with her hand and grabbed him at his private parts;” one is not liable for embarrassment unless if was intended.

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).

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.

If somebody sells a bull to another person and it turns out to be goring. Rav said, it is an acquisition in error, but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you to be slaughtered¹⁰⁷According to Rav, the buyer can force the annulment of the sale and receive his money back. According to Samuel, since a bull can be sold either for meat or for work, it is up to the buyer to specify for which use he is buying since for livestock there do not exist generally valid criteria of quality. (Ševi‘it 5:8, Notes 70,71; Babli 46a, Bava batra 92a).. “He shall give weregilt for his person.¹⁰⁸Ex.. 21:30. It is not clear to whom the verse refers in mentioning “his”, cf. Ketubot 3:10, Note 151 and all sources quoted there, in particular Babli 40a.” Some Tannaїm state: The attacker’s person. Some Tannaїm state: The person suffering the damage. Following him who said, the person suffering the damage, [assume] the first one injured him fatally and then the second came and kept him in confusion¹⁰⁹The bull of owner A injured a person who was prevented by the bull of owner B to seek immediate medical attention; the person then died.. If you say that damages are fully required¹¹⁰Damages are due even though weregilt was paid., the first one pays damages and the second pays the weregilt. If you say that damages are not fully required¹¹¹There is no claim for damages if there is one for weregilt., the first one pays weregilt but the second is not liable. Following him who said, the attacker’s person, if you say that damages are fully required, the first one pays weregilt and the second is not liable¹¹²Since the action of B’s bull was strictly defensive, he is not an attacker.. If you say that damages are not fully required, neither one is liable¹¹³If neither of them can be held criminally liable, neither of them can be held financially liable..