Szanhedrin — Talmud Jerusalmi

Szanhedrin

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

משנה: דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלשָׁה גְּזֵלוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת בִּשְׁלשָׁה נֶזֶק וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וְהַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע בִּשְׁלשָׁה דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלשָׁה שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ דִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת.MISHNAH: Money matters 8:7). are judged by three [judges]; robberies and injuries by three [judges], damages, half damages 1:4–5)., double restitution 7:1. The thief of livestock pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. quadruple and quintuple restitution. The rapist 4:1)., the seducer, and the calumniator 22:13–19). are judged by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say that the calumniator is judged by 23 because it might be a capital case 22:20–21) and the biblical text implies that the court which might sentence the husband to a fine is the one which might pass a death sentence, the case has to be tried in a tribunal empowered to try capital cases.According to rabbinic principles, Deut.22:13–21 cannot refer to a husband accusing his wife of not being a virgin since 1° by marriage, the husband became his wife’s relative and relatives are barred from appearing as witnesses; his case could not be heard. 2° there is no verse threatening a woman with death if she married when not a virgin. Therefore, the rabbinic interpretation of the paragraph is that the husband presents witnesses to the fact that his wife committed adultery while preliminarily married to him. A preliminarily married woman is married in respect to criminal but not civil law (cf. Introduction to Tractate Qiddušin).Another aspect of criminal law in this case is the law of perjury, Deut. 19:18–19. Since the husband’s witnesses intended to have the woman stoned, if they are shown to be perjured they themselves are stoned. Therefore, the case may be heard only in a court competent to impose death sentences..

הלכה: דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלשָׁה כול׳. מְנָן תֵּיתִי לֵיהּ. וְהָיוּ אֵלֶּה לָכֶם לְחֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה.HALAKHAH: “Money matters are judged by three [judges],” etc. From where comes this? These shall be the laws of procedure to you, 35:29. The chapter covers the rules of levitic cities, laws of property, and of the homicide, criminal law. I would say that both civil cases and criminal cases are subject to the rules of verification and examination refers to cross-examination relating to questions which answer to “who”, “when”, and “where”. Interrogation refers to answers to “how”. The distinction between the two is in regard to rules about discrepancies in testimony between different witnesses, Mishnah 5:1. The verse makes it clear that the rules also apply to lawsuits about subjects not covered by the detailed list in the Mishnah..

וּמְנַיִין לְדינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת שֶׁהֵן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים רִיבָה בָּהּ דַּיָין אֶחָד. עַד הָאֱלֹהִים הֲרֵי שְׁנַיִם. אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעוּן אֱלֹהִים הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר. הָרִאשׁוֹן תְּחִילָּה נֶאֱמַר וְאֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין תְּחִילּוֹת. אֶלָּא עַד הָאֱלֹהִים הֲרֵי אֶחָד. אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעוּן אֱלֹהִים הֲרֵי שְׁנַיִם. אֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁקוּל מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד. הֲרֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה.From where that civil cases are heard by three [judges]? The owner shall go to the judge,. 22:7. he added here one judge. Before the judge,. 22:8. these are two. Whom the judges will find guilty, these are three three times., the words of Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Jonathan said, the first mention introduces the subject; one does not infer anything from introductions.). The expression which introduces a subject always is necessary and cannot be considered additional or extraneous to the subject at hand.. But before the judge, there is one. Whom the judges will find guilty, there are two. No court may be even-numbered, so one adds another one; this makes three.

רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. בִּשְׁנַיִם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁנַיִם אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאֶחָד. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעָן אֱלֹהִים אֵין כָּתוּב כָּן אֶלָּא אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעוּן אֱלֹהִים. אֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁקוּל מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד. הֲרֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה.Rebbi said, the verse speaks about two. You say about two, or maybe it is only about one? What He said, it is not written “whom the judge will find guilty” but whom the judges will find guilty. No court may be even-numbered, so one adds another one; this makes three.

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בָּעֵי. וּכְרִבִּי דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בַּחֲמִשָּׁה וְשֶׂיִּגָּמֵר בְּכ״ג. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. הוֹאִיל וְאָמְרָה תוֹרָה. הֲרוֹג עַל פִּי מַטִּים הֲרוֹג עַל פִּי עֵדִים. מַה עֵדִים שְׁנַיִם אַף מַטִּים שְׁנַיִם. אֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁקוּל מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן אַחֵר. הֲרֵי חֲמִשָּׁה.Rebbi Abbahu asked. According to Rebbi, should not civil suits be heard by five; should sentence not be passed by 23 35:29 be interpreted as requiring identical procedural law for both civil and criminal cases?? It was found stated by (Rebbi) The fourth generation Rebbi Hizqiah would be much too late. The baraita is found in both Mekhiltot (dR. Ismael, ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 323, dR. Simeon ben Iohai ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 214.) Ḥizqiah: Since the Torah said, kill by a vote of the majority 23:2: “to bend after the many.” The same verse forbids a guilty verdict by a simple majority: “Do not follow the majority in bad things.” Since the plural used for “many” implies at least two, it follows that a guilty verdict by a majority of one is an acquittal, while by a majority of two it is a guilty verdict., kill by the testimony of witnesses. Since witnesses must be two 23:2 for criminal cases only., a majority also must be two 23:2 for criminal cases only.. No court can be even-numbered; one adds another one. This makes five.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin.1.1