Makkot — Talmud Jerusalmi

Makkot

Makkot — Talmud Jerusalmi a Beth HaMidrash oldalán: a héber szöveg és magyar fordítása, Rásival és a nagy kommentátorokkal. Ingyenes, online.

משנה: כֵּיצַד הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂים זוֹמְמִין מְעִידִים אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה אֵין אוֹמְרִין יֵיעָשֶׂה זֶה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה תַחְתָּיו אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. מְעִידִים אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב גָּלוּת. אֵין אוֹמְרִים יִגְלֶה זֶה תַחְתָּיו אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁגֵּירַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וַהֲלֹא בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין לְמָחָר סוֹפוֹ לִיתֶּן לָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אֶלָּא אוֹמְדִים כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זֹו שֶׁאִם נִתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה וְאִם מֵתָה יִירָשֶׁנָּה בַעְלָהּ.MISHNAH: How are plotting witnesses treated 19:16–20 prescribes that a “plotting” false witness has to be punished by the penalty which would have been imposed on his victim had his testimony been found true. By rabbinic definition, a “plotting” witness is one whose testimony not only is false but shown to be impossible, in that there are witnesses to the fact that he testified to be eye witness of a fact which he could not have seen since at the time it was supposed to have happened he was at another place (Sanhedrin Chapter 5, Note 3). There are cases when plotting perjury is proven but the penalty cannot be imposed. Then the false witness must be punished for breaking the Eighth Commandment, which is the standard punishment decreed for breaking any prohibition for which the penalty was not specified, fixed in Deut. 25:3 as at most 40 lashes (which, because the court marshal might err in his count, is limited to 39 lashes).The Babli (2b) disagrees with this explanation; it classifies simple perjury as “actionless crime” for which no penalty is possible; this clearly is not the Yerushalmi’s position (cf. Ketubot 4:4 Note 196.)? “We testify about this man that he is the son of a divorcee or a woman who had received ḥalîṣah. 21:7,14) is desecrated; he cannot function as a priest and the priestly revenues are forbidden to him. The divorcee is biblically forbidden to the Cohen. The widow receiving halîsah from the former husband’s brother is forbidden rabbinically; her son is rabbinically desecrated, which for practical consequences does not make any difference.” One does not say that he should be decreed to be the son of a divorcee or a woman who had received ḥalîṣah in his stead, but he is flogged 40 [lashes]. “We testify about this man that he is obligated to go into exile 35:9–34)..” One does not say, this one should go into exile in his stead but he is flogged 40 [lashes]. “We testify about this man that he divorced his wife but did not pay her ketubaḥ. would not be paid, i. e., if the woman stayed married to her husband and predeceased him. He can be fined the current discounted expected value of such a ketubah.” Would he not finally have to pay her ketubah today or tomorrow? But one estimates how much would a man be willing to pay for the ketubah of this woman in case she would be widowed or divorced, but if she died her husband would inherit from her.

הלכה: כֵּיצַד הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂין זוֹמְמִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. הַכֹּל הָיָה בִכְלָל לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר. יָצָא וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו. אֶת שֶׁאַתְּ יָכוֹל לְקַיֵים בּוֹ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם וגו׳ אַתְּ מְקַיֵים בּוֹ (לֹא תַעֲנֶה) [וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת]. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל לְקַיֵים בּוֹ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו (אֵין) אַתְּ מְקַיֵים בּוֹ לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ. דָּבָר אַחֵר. וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ. לֹא לְזַרְעוֹ.HALAKHAH: “How are plotting witnesses treated,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. As an exception, do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor. If you can satisfy do to him as he plotted then fulfill (do not testify) [do to him as he plotted to do]. But if you cannot satisfy do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor then (do not) satisfy do not testify against your neighbor 19:16–20 prescribes that a “plotting” false witness has to be punished by the penalty which would have been imposed on his victim had his testimony been found true. By rabbinic definition, a “plotting” witness is one whose testimony not only is false but shown to be impossible, in that there are witnesses to the fact that he testified to be eye witness of a fact which he could not have seen since at the time it was supposed to have happened he was at another place (Sanhedrin Chapter 5, Note 3). There are cases when plotting perjury is proven but the penalty cannot be imposed. Then the false witness must be punished for breaking the Eighth Commandment, which is the standard punishment decreed for breaking any prohibition for which the penalty was not specified, fixed in Deut. 25:3 as at most 40 lashes (which, because the court marshal might err in his count, is limited to 39 lashes).The Babli (2b) disagrees with this explanation; it classifies simple perjury as “actionless crime” for which no penalty is possible; this clearly is not the Yerushalmi’s position (cf. Ketubot 4:4 Note 196.). Another explanation: Do to him, not to his descendants.

רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ. שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים מְסוּרִין לְבֵית דִּין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אֶחָד מֵהֶן. יָצָא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא מָסוּר לַשָּׁמַיִם.Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, if two alternatives are presented to the court, one chooses one of them.20:13) and plotting (Deut. 19:19). This justifies the alternative presented in the preceding paragraph.The text is copied from Terumot 7:1 Note 14; also Bava qamma 7:2, Note 30.. This excludes matters in the Power of Heaven; it is irrelevant here..

כָּתוּב וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זֶרַע שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַלֵּל. הִיא עַצְמָהּ מְנַיִין. וְדִין הוּא. מָה אִם הַזֶּרַע שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר עֲבֵירָה הֲרֵי הוּא מִתְחַלֵּל. הִיא שֶׁעָבְרָה עֲבֵירָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּתְחַלֵּל. הוּא עַצְמוֹ יוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵירָה וְאֵינוֹ מִתְחַלֵּל. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּה בְאִישׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְחַלֵּל בְּכָל מָקוֹם תֹּאמַר בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא מִתְחַלֶּלֶת בְּכָל מָקוֹם. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא מִתְחַלֶּלֶת בְּכָל מָקוֹם דִּין הוּא שֶׁתִּתְחַלֵּל. וְאִם נַפְשָׁךְ לוֹמַר. לֹא יָחוֹל וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל. אַף מִי שֶׁהָיָה כָשֵׁר וְנִתְחַלֵּל.77a, Sifra Emor Pereq 2(7–8). It is written 21:15. This verse is written for the High Priest, but it is applied to all priests who marry women forbidden to them.: He shall not desecrate his issue in his people. Not only his issue will be desecrated; from where also she 21:7,14 the “desecrated woman” is mentioned in the list of women forbidden to the Cohen. The verse implies that the daughter of a Cohen from an illicit union is conceived desecrated. There is no verse which spells out the conditions under which a woman otherwise may become desecrated. There is a verse which specifies that the daughter of a Cohen married to anon-Cohen or mother of a non-Cohen child is disqualified from priestly revenues (Lev. 22:12–13), but not desecrated. Since the “desecrated woman” is always mentioned together with the prostitute, it is inferred that sexual offenses of a woman desecrate her.? Is this not a logical inference? Since the issue, which did not sin, is desecrated, should she, who committed a sin. 21:7, addressed to the common priest, repeat the verb “do not marry”, this is read to mean that the first mention is the prohibition for the male to marry, the second the prohibition for the female to agree to be married (Yebamot 9:1 Note 13, Qiddušin 3:14 Note 243; Sifra Emor Pereq 1(12), Babli Yebamot 84b)., not logically be desecrated? He himself is a counter example, since he committed a sin but was not desecrated 2(8). The son of a Cohen from an illicit union is desecrated from conception; he does not become desecrated. This implies that no male Cohen may become desecrated; he may, however, become unfit for his office.. No. If you argue about a man who is not desecrated in any circumstance, what can you say about a woman who is desecrated in many circumstances? Since she is desecrated in many circumstances, it is logical that she should be desecrated. If you wish you can say “not to desecrate”, not to desecrate, about somebody who was qualified and became desecrated, most texts read יחלל both times; but from Ravad’s commentary one sees that the first time he read יַחֵל (Num. 30:3), identical in meaning with יְחַלֵּל.As explained in Note 16, actively “to desecrate” implies the existence of an object which is not yet desecrated. Since any child of the illicit union of a Cohen is intrinsically desecrated, it cannot be made desecrated. Since the male is not desecrated, the use of the active יְחַלֵּל therefore implies that the female is desecrated..

בַּר פְּדָיָיה אָמַר. הַמְחַלֵּל לֹא נִתְחַלֵּל הֵיאַךְ זֶה מִתְחַלֵּל.Bar Pedaya said, the desecrator was not desecrated: how can this one be desecrated?

Jerusalem Talmud Makkot.1.1