כִּ֣י יְסִֽיתְךָ֡ אָחִ֣יךָ בֶן־אִ֠מֶּךָ אֽוֹ־בִנְךָ֨ אֽוֹ־בִתְּךָ֜ א֣וֹ ׀ אֵ֣שֶׁת חֵיקֶ֗ךָ א֧וֹ רֵֽעֲךָ֛ אֲשֶׁ֥ר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ֖ בַּסֵּ֣תֶר לֵאמֹ֑ר נֵֽלְכָ֗ה וְנַֽעַבְדָה֙ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתָּ אַתָּ֖ה וַאֲבֹתֶֽיךָ׃
Si ton frère, l’enfant de ta mère, si ton fils ou ta fille, ta compagne ou l’ami de ton cœur vient secrètement te séduire, en disant: "Allons servir des dieux étrangers," que toi ni tes pères n’avez jamais connus,
Jerusalem Talmud Sotah
They answered on the words of Rebbi Yose ben Jehudah: If so, there is no end to it. If he is believed, he declares his jealousy (before two) [by himself]32The text (in parentheses) is an obvious error but it appears also in the Rome ms. The translation [in brackets] is a conjectured emendation.
The problem is that according to R. Yose ben R. Jehudah’s version, the husband may state that he had declared his jealousy without the wife having a possibility of disproving his claim. He may then plant witnesses and trick her into being alone with another man in order to divorce her without payment., brings witnesses that she was in a secluded place and disables her from receiving the ketubah33The marriage contract specifying the monetary obligations of the husband towards his wife and her children. The same argument is given in the Babli, 2b.. Rebbi Yose said, what business did she have in a secluded place34Being alone with another man is misbehaving. It is stated in Mishnah Qiddushin 4:12 that a woman, other than his mother or daughter, may not be alone with man to whom she is not married (unless the latter’s wife is close by). Why should the husband not be able to divorce her through her fault?? But it refers to the statement in the Mishnah35The Mishnah’s version of R. Eliezer’s position. In R. Yose ben R. Jehudah’s version, at least the fact of the wife’s misbehavior must be established in court by two witnesses subject to cross-examination. But in the Mishnah’s version, two witnesses are needed only to certify the relatively minor fact of the declaration of jealousy but after that, the husband can deprive the wife of her ketubah money simply by stating that she misbehaved. This contradicts all rules of procedure in civil cases. The same argument is given in the Babli, 2b.. Is he believed to declare formally his jealousy and then say that she was in a secluded place and disable her from receiving her ketubah? Rebbi Mana said, even for that other Tanna36R. Yose ben R. Jehudah. it is [a] valid [objection], following him who says that he may declare his jealousy in respect to her father or her son. Is he believed to declare his jealousy with respect to her father and her son, can he then bring witnesses that she was in a secluded place with them and disable her from receiving her ketubah? If you ask, what business did she have in a secluded place? The Torah permitted her to be in a secluded place, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, it is written37Deut. 13:7. The verse mentions maternal halfbrother, son, daughter, and wife, as persons who may be in a hidden place with him. In the Babli Qiddushin 80b, R. Joḥanan is quoted in the name of R. Ismael, in Sanhedrin 21b and Avodah Zarah 36b in the name of R. Joḥanan’s teacher R. Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq.: “If your brother, your mother’s son, incites you, etc.,” Your daughter, in secret; your mother, in secret; a man may be alone with his mother and dwell with her38This is not explicit in the verse but is inferred from the involved description of “your brother, your mother’s son”; it is spelled out in the Babli, loc. cit., with his daughter and dwell with her, with his sister but may not dwell with her39She is not mentioned in the verse..
The problem is that according to R. Yose ben R. Jehudah’s version, the husband may state that he had declared his jealousy without the wife having a possibility of disproving his claim. He may then plant witnesses and trick her into being alone with another man in order to divorce her without payment., brings witnesses that she was in a secluded place and disables her from receiving the ketubah33The marriage contract specifying the monetary obligations of the husband towards his wife and her children. The same argument is given in the Babli, 2b.. Rebbi Yose said, what business did she have in a secluded place34Being alone with another man is misbehaving. It is stated in Mishnah Qiddushin 4:12 that a woman, other than his mother or daughter, may not be alone with man to whom she is not married (unless the latter’s wife is close by). Why should the husband not be able to divorce her through her fault?? But it refers to the statement in the Mishnah35The Mishnah’s version of R. Eliezer’s position. In R. Yose ben R. Jehudah’s version, at least the fact of the wife’s misbehavior must be established in court by two witnesses subject to cross-examination. But in the Mishnah’s version, two witnesses are needed only to certify the relatively minor fact of the declaration of jealousy but after that, the husband can deprive the wife of her ketubah money simply by stating that she misbehaved. This contradicts all rules of procedure in civil cases. The same argument is given in the Babli, 2b.. Is he believed to declare formally his jealousy and then say that she was in a secluded place and disable her from receiving her ketubah? Rebbi Mana said, even for that other Tanna36R. Yose ben R. Jehudah. it is [a] valid [objection], following him who says that he may declare his jealousy in respect to her father or her son. Is he believed to declare his jealousy with respect to her father and her son, can he then bring witnesses that she was in a secluded place with them and disable her from receiving her ketubah? If you ask, what business did she have in a secluded place? The Torah permitted her to be in a secluded place, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, it is written37Deut. 13:7. The verse mentions maternal halfbrother, son, daughter, and wife, as persons who may be in a hidden place with him. In the Babli Qiddushin 80b, R. Joḥanan is quoted in the name of R. Ismael, in Sanhedrin 21b and Avodah Zarah 36b in the name of R. Joḥanan’s teacher R. Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq.: “If your brother, your mother’s son, incites you, etc.,” Your daughter, in secret; your mother, in secret; a man may be alone with his mother and dwell with her38This is not explicit in the verse but is inferred from the involved description of “your brother, your mother’s son”; it is spelled out in the Babli, loc. cit., with his daughter and dwell with her, with his sister but may not dwell with her39She is not mentioned in the verse..
Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot
125The parallel is in Sanhedrin 7:16. The Mishnah states that there are two kinds of missionaries for idolatry, the seducer (Deut. 13:7–12) and the expeller (Deut. 13:13–19). The seducer is the one who tries to bring individuals to idolatry whereas the expeller adresses himself to the public. They go under different rules and one cannot try a seducer as an expeller and vice-versa. The first part of the paragraph has no relevance for the topics of this Halakhah, only the second part does.
The expression תמן תנינן introduces a Mishnah. Here, it introduces a paraphrase of the Mishnah. There, we have stated: “The seducer is a common person, the seduced is a common person.” Therefore, not a Sage126Is a thoroughly educated person immune from prosecution for idolatry?? (Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage.)127Sentence out of place, missing in Sanhedrin. Since he seduces, he is not a Sage. Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage. What does one do to be sly about him? One hides two witnesses, people128A marginal gloss that entered the text, missing in Sanhedrin., in an inner room and puts him into the outer room, lights a candle near him so they can see him and hear his voice. That is what they did to Ben Satra129In Sanhedrin: Ben Sôtĕdā, in the Babli, Sanhedrin 67a, and Tosephta Sanhedrin 10:11: Ben Sātĕdā, explained there as “son of the adultress” (known as Miriam the women’s hairdresser). in Lod, where they hid two Sages, brought him to court, and stoned him. And here, you say so130In the case in Sanhedrin, the single person whom the Seducer wants to convert to idolatry is unable to testify since a single witness is insufficient in criminal proceedings. Therefore, he had to find supporting witnesses in secret. But if voice identification is sufficient to permit a woman to marry even though up to now she was a married woman forbidden under the penalties of adultery to everybody except her husband, then voice identification should be enough also in other criminal proceedings.? It is different because he said, “I am”. Here also, “I am”?131If the intended victim could get the seducer to identify himself as “I am …” then voice identification should be enough. That he should not flee, go away, and continue to seduce others with him132The previous argument is correct; also for the court it would have been enough to hide a single witness who would be the second witness after the intended victim. One chooses two hidden witnesses to have enough manpower to arrest the seducer and haul him into court..
The expression תמן תנינן introduces a Mishnah. Here, it introduces a paraphrase of the Mishnah. There, we have stated: “The seducer is a common person, the seduced is a common person.” Therefore, not a Sage126Is a thoroughly educated person immune from prosecution for idolatry?? (Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage.)127Sentence out of place, missing in Sanhedrin. Since he seduces, he is not a Sage. Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage. What does one do to be sly about him? One hides two witnesses, people128A marginal gloss that entered the text, missing in Sanhedrin., in an inner room and puts him into the outer room, lights a candle near him so they can see him and hear his voice. That is what they did to Ben Satra129In Sanhedrin: Ben Sôtĕdā, in the Babli, Sanhedrin 67a, and Tosephta Sanhedrin 10:11: Ben Sātĕdā, explained there as “son of the adultress” (known as Miriam the women’s hairdresser). in Lod, where they hid two Sages, brought him to court, and stoned him. And here, you say so130In the case in Sanhedrin, the single person whom the Seducer wants to convert to idolatry is unable to testify since a single witness is insufficient in criminal proceedings. Therefore, he had to find supporting witnesses in secret. But if voice identification is sufficient to permit a woman to marry even though up to now she was a married woman forbidden under the penalties of adultery to everybody except her husband, then voice identification should be enough also in other criminal proceedings.? It is different because he said, “I am”. Here also, “I am”?131If the intended victim could get the seducer to identify himself as “I am …” then voice identification should be enough. That he should not flee, go away, and continue to seduce others with him132The previous argument is correct; also for the court it would have been enough to hide a single witness who would be the second witness after the intended victim. One chooses two hidden witnesses to have enough manpower to arrest the seducer and haul him into court..
Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin
Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai246So also in Soṭah 1:1, Note 38. In the Babli 80b, R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Ismael, in Sanhedrin 21b, Avodah zarah 36b, in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. The latter attribution probably is the correct one; in these two quotes also the verse correctly is called “a hint”, not a proof.: “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son, or your daughter incites you247Deut. 13:7. As usual, the reference is to the part of the verse not quoted; in this case that the inciting happens “in secret”.”. “Your mother in secret,” “your daughter in secret.” A man can be alone with his mother and live with her248In a one-room apartment., with his daughter and live with her, with his sister and does not live with her, and sleep with them with their skins touching. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: The daughter with her father up to the age of three years and one day249The day she becomes nubile.; the son with his mother up to the age of nine years and one day250Before that day, his sex act has no legal consequences (Mishnah Yebamot 10:6).. If they get older, each one sleeps in his own clothing. It was stated251Similar statements are in Berakhot 24a.: If two people sleep in the same bed, each one covers himself with his own garment and recites {the Šema‘}252Which, as a holy text, it is forbidden to recite in the presence of nudity.; if his son or daughter were small it is permitted. There, they say: A man with his wife is permitted253Even if both are naked under the same bedsheet, since “his wife is part of his body” (Babli Berakhot 24a).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A man with his wife is problematic254Even if his wife is part of his body, he could recite the Šema‘ while lying close to her only if she would not represent a sexual attraction to him. This is not a desirable situation..