Rujukan Talmud untuk Ulangan 22:19: Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit, Jerusalem Talmud Terumot, Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot & Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

MISHNAH: The Sabbatical remits any loan¹The end of the Sabbatical year., with or without a document²In Talmudic tradition, there are three kinds of loan by document. If there is no surety given in the document, the status of the loan is the same as that of a loan given in front of two witnesses, without a written document. The standard loan contract establishes a lien by the creditor on all real estate the borrower may have. (Some tannaitic authorities hold that the absence of such a lien from a document is an error of the scribe; the existence of a lien may always be assumed.) Since the lien (known as “alienation of property”) is not specified, the lender can foreclose on such a loan only by lengthy court proceedings. If the loan is documented and given as a mortgage on a specific parcel of real estate, in the theory of the Yerushalmi it is a loan on a pledge and not remitted, as stated in Mishnah 2.. Store credit is not remitted; if it is transformed into a loan it is remitted. Rebbi Jehudah says, any preceding one is remitted³R. Jehudah holds that any new credit given by a store to a customer automatically transforms any previous credit into a loan.. Wages of a hired hand are not remitted; if they are transformed into a loan they are remitted; Rebbi Yose says, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted; if it does not stop they are not remitted⁴It is to be discussed whether the work has to stop because of the Sabbatical or only during the Sabbatical. The hired hand cannot be a day-worker because the wages of a person hired for the day must be paid that same day..
If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day³⁶The butcher gives away meat both days of the New Year of the Sabbatical. It is forbidden to transact business on the holiday; therefore, the Mishnah avoids speaking about selling meat; the meat is distributed on the holiday, billed later by estimate., if the month was long it is subject to remission³⁷If the month of Elul was 30 days, the first day of the New Year really was the 30th of Elul, the second day the first of Tishre. The debt incurred on the first day enters the Sabbatical and is subject to remission; the debt of the second day is contracted during the Sabbatical and not subject to remission., otherwise it is not subject to remission. The rapist, the seducer, the calumniator³⁸These are all fines, and fines are never remitted. The fine for the rapist is spelled out in Deut. 22:29, the one for the seducer Ex. 22:16, the one for the calumniator who accuses his bride of adultery between the preliminary and actual marriages, Deut. 22:19., and all court documents are not subject to remission. If somebody gives loans on pledge³⁹The pledge is in the hand of the lender; the loan is not a claim on another person but the borrower must come and redeem his pledge., or deposits his documents⁴⁰The obligation of remission of debt is one on real persons only. with the court, they are not subject to remission.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave intentionally,” etc. ²Lev. 22:14: “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth to it and give the consecrated food to the Cohen.” The verse explicitly restricts the duty of adding a fifth to the case when heave is eaten in error. Also, the restitution is called holy only in that case. Since the money for restitution is not holy, the Cohen may give it to the offender, i. e., refrain from accepting it. The sin of eating heave intentionally is too great to be forgiven for just a monetary fine. The Mishnah applies only to the case in which the offender was not warned by two witnesses not to sin; in the latter case, he will be whipped by order of the court. Whether he then has to pay is discussed in the Halakhah. There, we have stated³Mishnah Makkot 3:1–5 gives a list of all transgressions punishable by flogging. The list starts with “him who sleeps with his sister”, and later mentions “him who eats ṭevel and First Heave of which no heave was taken,” where he is punished for eating the heave contained in the produce; hence, eating heave is punished by flogging.: “The following are flogged,” and we have stated⁴Mishnah Ketubot 3:1: “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine, .. he who sleeps with his sister, …” The fines are incurred either for the rape (Deut. 22:19) or the seduction (Ex.22:16) of a minor girl; cf. Note 26. The Mishnaiot seem to imply that raping one’s minor sister (and a non-Cohen’s eating heave) is punished by flogging and a fine.: “These are the girls.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned⁵In addition, there must be two eye witnesses who saw the transgression; cf. Kilaim, Chapter 8, Note 9., he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “His guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts⁶“Guilt” (in the singular) here is taken to mean “atonement for his guilt”, that for one transgression there can be only one punishment. It is quite possible that with one act one commits a multiple sin; then each sin separately can be punished but no one sin can incur more than one punishment (Sifry Deut. 286).. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence, a number [of times] because of his guilt.”

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged⁷A similar text is in Ketubot 3:1 (fol. 27b), but there the Mishnah here is quoted as proof. In Ševu‘ot 4:9 (fol. 35d), R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted as disagreeing with R. Meïr. In the Babli, Ketubot 33b, R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted only as noting that Mishnah 3:1 gives the opinion of R. Meïr without endorsing it.? A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged⁸Since Mishnaiot Ketubot 3:1 and Terumot 7:1 are formulated unconditionally, they should be interpreted as applying any time there are two witnesses to the transgression, independent of witnesses regarding cautioning.? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁹In the Babli, Makkot 4b, the author is Ulla (R. La).: Rebbi Meïr learned from the calumniator¹⁰The man who publicly accuses his wife whom he married as a supposed virgin when she was almost an adult (between 12 and 12½ years of age), not to have been virginal. If he cannot produce two witnesses who prove the adultery of the wife between the preliminary and the actual marriage, he is fined, whipped, and prohibited to ever divorce his wife.. (Deut. 22:19) “And they shall fine him”, money; (Deut. 22:18) “they shall punish him,” flogging. But the rabbis say, [the law of] the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech¹¹The Halakhah later will discuss the case of perjured witnesses. These, according to the Yerushalmi, in a civil case will pay but not be flogged and, according to the Babli (Makkot 4b), in a criminal case will be flogged without prior cautioning. In no case can perjury parallel calumny.. Since one cannot transfer this feature, one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If he [eats] fat intentionally but is in error about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice¹²Cf. Chapter 6, Notes 5,6.! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven¹⁴Since sacrifices are between the individual and Heaven, the procedural rules of the court are inapplicable to the case and nothing can be inferred from rules of sacrifices for court procedures..