Talmud zu Schemot 23:6

Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose. Is there not written¹⁴Deut. 19:17.: The two men who have the lawsuit shall stand before the Eternal? Now men, is not two the minimum of “men”? If so, why does it say two? That both be equal? But it is written¹⁵Deut. 24:17.: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan,… So we find that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan, a widow against somebody who is not a widow. Then why does the verse say two? It is free to be combined and one may infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two. Since there two means men but not women nor underaged, also here two means men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a (judge) [witness]; consequently a woman may not be a (witness) [judge]¹⁶The scribe’s text in parentheses conforms to the parallels; the corrector’s in brackets is more logical..

Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is by Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra¹⁵²In the parallel in Babli Ḥulin134a, he appears as R. Jehudah bar Agra (from Kefar Acco), a Tanna of the fourth generation. There in Ḥulin, R. Jehudah ben Agra explicitly formulates that peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves in case of doubt belong to the poor, confirming the interpretation of R. Joḥanan., as it was stated: “A Gentile who converted but had cut grain before he converted is free¹⁵³From the obligation of gleanings, even if he converted before the grain was bound into sheaves. The poor may collect gleanings only after the cut grain is bound into sheaves.; after he converted, he is obligated. If it is in doubt, he is free. Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra obligates him¹⁵⁴If he is Jewish at the moment the field is ready to be searched by the poor, he cannot collect gleanings after his conversion..” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it¹⁵⁵Even Rebbi Meïr will agree with the Sages against R. Jehudah ben Ḥagra since our question is not one of doubt but of principle. agrees with everybody: A Jew, who is obligated in principle, is also obligated in doubtful cases; a Gentile, who is not obligated in principle, is not obligated in doubt. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings¹⁵⁶And you obligate the convert because of a legal doubt, viz., whether the obligation of leaving the gleanings is incurred at the moment of cutting, in which case there would be no obligation, or at the moment the field is abandoned to the poor, in which case the convert is obligated.? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: So did Rebbi Meïr argue with the Sages, do you not agree with me that gleanings in doubt are gleanings¹⁵⁷But the case of R. Jehudah ben Ḥagra is not comparable to that of the Mishnah.?

From where that gleanings in doubt are gleanings? Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “Poor and rich, justify him¹⁵⁸There is no such verse in Scripture. The consensus of the commentators is that it should read: (Ps. 82:3) “Do justice for the poor and needy.” One does justice in also giving him the gifts that are in doubt.” in his gifts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: (Ex. 23:6) “Do not bend the lawsuit of your destitute.” In his lawsuit, you may not bend¹⁵⁹The judge may not say: His opponent has deep pockets; let me rule for the poor; then he will need no public assistance., but you may bend for him in his gifts¹⁶⁰To rule for him also in doubtful cases.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he¹⁶¹The poor acquires as his right, not as a possibility as in the previous argument. acquires in this case, as Rebbi instructed us (Lev. 19:10, 23:22): “abandon,” put something before him of your own¹⁶²The term “abandon” first refers to the gifts that belong to the poor as of right; the second mention in the same verse refers to the doubtful cases when one has to renounce his rights; a similar argument is found in Sifra Qedošim 2:7. The same applies for the triple expression quoted by R. La. It is clear from here that Practice has to follow R. Meïr; this is also the decision of Maimonides (Mattenot Aniïm 4:9).. Rebbi La said, it is written (Deut. 24:19–21): “It shall be the sojourner’s, the orphan’s, and the widow’s;” give him both from yours and from his!

“The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor,” etc. It is written: Do not bend your destitute’s proceeding in his trial⁸¹Ex. 23:6. The protection accorded defendants in criminal trials cannot be made dependent on the defendant’s status.. In his trial you do not bend; you may bend in the ox’s trial⁸²While the ox who killed a human is on trial for its life, the rules are those of civil suits since the ox represents its owner’s money.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only in those rules which are different for civil and criminal suits. How many are these? We have stated nine⁸³In Mishnaiot 1–7. The Babli, 36b, points out that there is another difference stated in Mishnah 8, but the exclusion of bastards is implicit already in the choice of 23 judges since these judges must in theory be qualified to serve in Moses’s council.; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated eleven. Which rules are the last two? The castrate and one who never had children⁸⁴The Babli, 36b, also excludes men too old to remember the trouble they had in raising their children, who also would be inclined to cruelty. is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also one who is less than twenty years of age or who does not have two pubic hairs⁸⁵Although he is past age 20 he still is infantile; cf. Yebamot 10:17 Notes 221–227. is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said thirteen. Which rules are the last two? One judges two civil suits on one day but one does not try two criminal suits on one day. Rebbi Abin said, even adulterer and adulteress⁸⁶Where the proof of guilt of one person equally applies to the other. In the Babli, 46a, Rav Ḥisda restricts this to the case where the statutory punishments are different, such as adultery with a Cohen’s daughter, where the adulterer is strangled but the adulteress burned. There is no reason to transfer this statement to the Yerushalmi. Cf. Note 35..