Talmud su Esodo 21:29

MISHNAH: Whipping by three [judges]; in the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, by 23¹⁰⁷The imposition of corporal punishment needs an official court of duly ordained judges. The Mishnah is a reconstruction of what was assumed to be the historic procedure; R. Ismael lived about 70 years after the removal of criminal jurisdiction from Jewish courts and R. Meïr, represented by the anonymous opinion, more than 100 years afterwards. But the prescription of the Mishnah certainly was followed by the autonomous Jewish courts under the Parthians.. The lengthening of a month by three [judges]¹⁰⁸Whether a thirtieth day should be counted for the current month. Fixing the calendar was the sole privilege of a committee of the Patriarch’s court as a successor to the Synhedrion. The current computed calendar was promulgated by such a court in the middle of the Fourth Century (Eruvin 3:11 21c l. 24)., the intercalation of a year by three [judges]¹⁰⁹In the current calendar, the addition of 30 days to the lunar year, labelled as “First Adar.”, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one starts with three, one discusses with five, and one votes with seven¹¹⁰A committe of three has to decide whether the year be a candidate for intercalation; an enlarged committe of five has to do the detailed computations; a further enlarged committee of seven has to confirm the computations. Intercalated months in the lunar year are necessary to keep Passover in the “month of spring” as required by Ex. 13:4.
There is no basic disagreement between R. Meïr and Rabban Simeon, since the latter agrees that in an emergency situation, a duly empowered committee of three is competent. Since Rabban Simeon was the Patriarch of the restauration during the second half of the Second Century, his procedure was the one actually used.. But if they voted with three, it is intercalated.
The leaning of Elders²²⁰Lev. 4:15. If the High Court realized that they had erred in a ruling and permitted something which is biblically prohibited, they have to bring a purification sacrifice and a deputation of the Court has to lean with their hands on the head of the sacrificial animal while confessing their error, as detailed in Traxtate Horaiot. and the breaking of the calf’s neck²²¹The ritual of atonement for an unsolved murder, Deut. 21:1–9, Soţah Chapter 9. by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Simeon, but Rebbi Jehudah says, by five. Ḥalîṣah²²²The ceremony by which the widow of a childless man is freed from levirate marriage, which requires involvement of “the Elders”, Deut. 25:5–9. and repudiations²²³The repudiation of a marriage by an underage girl, married off by her mother or brothers after her father’s death and whose marriage during her minority is valid only rabbinically; cf. Yebamot Chapter 13. by three [judges], [redemption of] the growth of the fourth year²²⁴The fruits of a tree in the fourth year after planting, the first year they are permitted as food, have to be eaten in holiness by the rules of Second Tithe (Lev.19:24; Maˋaser Šeni Chapter 5). They may be redeemed under the rules of Second Tithe, the sanctity being transferred to the redemption money. and Second Tithe²²⁵Cf. Maˋaser Šeni 4:2, Note 51. Second Tithe remains the farmer’s property but must be eaten in purity at the site of the Temple. If there is any danger of spoilage in transport, the produce may be redeemed and the sanctity transferred to the redemption money, Deut. 14:22–26; cf. Introduction to Tractate Maˋaser Šeni. whose value is not known by three [appraisers], also of Temple dedications²²⁶Property donated to the Temple which will be sold by the Temple treasurer upon appraisal by a committee of three; Lev.27:11. by three. Estimations of movables²²⁷If a person makes a vow to donate the estimated value of a person to the Temple, the amount payable is specified in Lev.27:2–7 depending on age and sex. If the person wants to pay with movables in lieu of money, their value has to be determined by a committee of three. These rules are detailed in Tractate ˋArakhin. by three [appraisers], Rebbi Jehudah says that one of them must be a Cohen; of real estate²²⁸Lev. 27:14–25. In all verses speaking of redemption of property donated to the Temple, ‘the Cohen” is mentioned in the singular. nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans²²⁹Somebody promising to pay to the Temple the value a person would fetch if sold as a slave..
Capital crimes [are judged] by 23. The participants in active or passive bestiality²⁵⁹Whether human or animal; the additional statement is needed only for the animal. [is judged] by 23, as it is said, you shall slay the woman and the animal²⁶⁰Lev. 20:16. Since woman and animal are mentioned together, the animal can be condemned only by a court empowered to judge the woman who had sex with the animal., and it says, and you shall slay the animal²⁶¹Lev. 20:15, about male bestiality.. The bull to be stoned²⁶²Which had killed a human. [is judged] by 23, as it is said, the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die²⁶³Ex. 21:29.; like the owner’s death sentence so is the ox’s death sentence. The wolf and the lion, the bear, and the tiger, and the panther, and the snake are sentenced to death by 23²⁶⁴He does not need permission; it is no case for a court.. Rebbi Eliezer says, anyone quick to kill them is meritorious²⁶⁵End of Halakhah 1, Notes 103–106.; Rebbi Aqiba says, they are sentenced by 23.

General²⁶⁶Greek ἡγεμῶν “leader, commander.” In 19c l. 61 (Note 366) his name is Antoninus, in 19d l. 4 (Note 373) Antigonos. The story has many parallels in which various forms of the name appear. Jastrow and Krauss think of Quietus, a general of Trajan not likely to have conversed with a person who died under Vespasian. A Genizah text shows that אגנטוס is the correct form. {Perhaps it is not a name but a title, εὐγενής “noble, well-born.”(E. G.)} אגנטוס asked Rebbi²⁶⁷His title should be Rabban. Joḥanan ben Zakkai: the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die²⁶³Ex. 21:29.? He answered, the robber’s²⁶⁸Greek, λῃστής, ληϊστής. partner is like the robber. When he had left, his students asked him, rabbi, this one you pushed away with a cane²⁶⁹Since the owner is not executed, the answer cannot be correct.; what are you telling us? He said to them, it is written, the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die, like the owner’s death sentence so is the ox’s death sentence. Since the owner’s death sentence would be by a court of 23, investigation²⁷⁰An exact investigation into the circumstances of the crime; the evaluation of the evidence is within the purview of the court. and cross-examination²⁷¹The determination when, where, and how the crime was committed. Discrepancies in testimony about these questions make prosecution impossible; cf. Mishnah 5:1–2., so the ox’s death sentence is by a court of 23, investigation and cross-examination²⁷²Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 21:29..

MISHNAH: A bull which gored a human who then died, if it is notorious [the owner] pays weregilt⁶⁶Ex. 21:30., if tame he is not liable for weregilt; in both cases they have to be killed⁶⁷Ex. 21:28,29.. The same holds for a son or a daughter⁶⁸There is no difference whether the victim was adult or underage. The statement is only necessary since the verse, Ex. 21:31, stresses that the same rules apply to underage as to adult victims.. It it gored a male or female slave, [the owner] pays 30 tetradrachmas⁶⁹Ex. 21:32., whether he was worth a mina or was worth only a gold⁷⁰This reading is also found in some Babli mss., Alfasi, and the Naples print of the Mishnah. In other texts: “one (silver) denar”. denar.

HALAKHAH: “A bull which gored a human,” etc. It was stated⁷¹Babli 41b; cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 10 (Horovitz-Rabin p. 283); Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai21:28, Midrash Tannaïm(Midrash Haggadol Ex. 21:28, ed. Margaliut p. 484.): “But the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.,” free from half the weregilt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, Rabbi, is he not destined for the severity of the stoning place⁷³As the formulation of the Babli makes explicit, since any damages caused by a tame animal are paid from its body and a bull which killed a human is stoned and its carcass forbidden for usufruct, there is nothing from which either damages or fine might be paid.? He answered him, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human⁷⁴The bull was attacking another animal when a human intervened and was killed. In that case, the bull is not condemned to be stoned and is not forbidden for usufruct., etc.⁷⁵A list of similar situations as given later in the paragraph. Before he objects to Rebbi Eliezer, should he not object to himself⁷⁶Below, R. Aqiba is quoted as holding that the verse frees the owner of a tame bull from paying for the death of a slave. He should have told himself that his interpretation is impossible.? Rebbi Miasha said, explain it if he transgressed and slaughtered it⁷⁷As stated in Mishnah 9, the bull’s meat becomes forbidden only when it is stoned. If the owners slaughter it immediately after the attack, before the court had time to intervene, the meat is valuable and its proceeds are available to cover damages.. But some want to say, from what⁷⁸Reading מִן “from” instead of מאן “who” (I. Lewy). we learn from Rebbi Eliezer who said, I said this only for one which intended to kill an animal but killed a human, a Gentile but killed an Israel⁴⁰It is stressed in Ex. 21:1 that the laws of that Chapter is before them; it applies only to intra-Israelite lawsuits. An application to suits involving Gentiles is illegitimate (Sifry Deut. 16; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 1). Gentile law does not recognize payment for half the damages., still birth but killed a viable [child]⁷⁹Killing a fetus or a newborn which is not viable is forbidden but not prosecutable as murder; the same holds for killing a ṭerepha, a terminally ill person., he is not liable. How does Rebbi Aqiba explain “the owner of the bull is free”⁷²Ex. 21:28.’⁷⁶Below, R. Aqiba is quoted as holding that the verse frees the owner of a tame bull from paying for the death of a slave. He should have told himself that his interpretation is impossible.? Free from paying for a slave. Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that he is free from paying for a slave? “If weregilt is imposed on him,⁸⁰Ex. 21:30.” the verse speaks of the notorious⁸¹Therefore, the notion of weregilt is not applicable to the tame bull; the exemption needs no verse.. Does not Rebbi Aqiba agree that he is free from half the weregilt? It is said here, “the bull shall be stoned⁸²Ex. 21:29. This verse imposes weregilt for the killing of a free person by a notorious bull.,” and it says there, “the bull shall be stoned.⁸³Ex. 21:32. This verse imposes a fine for the killing of a slave.” Since about “the bull” mentioned there, the verse speaks of the notorious, so also about “the bull shall be stoned” mentioned here, the verse speaks of the notorious⁸⁴Therefore, no fine is imposed for the killing of a slave by a tame bull.. But is it not written: “The bull by stoning shall be stoned⁷²Ex. 21:28.”? It is better that “the bull shall be stoned” shall be interpreted following “the bull shall be stoned” rather than that “the bull shall be stoned” should be interpreted following “the bull by stoning shall be stoned”⁸⁴Therefore, no fine is imposed for the killing of a slave by a tame bull..

HALAKHAH: “A bull which was rubbing itself against a wall,” etc. “A man who kills any human soul,¹⁰¹Lev. 21:17.” to include a hit which is potentially deadly. Some Tannaïm state, even if it is not deadly¹⁰²The Babli, Sanhedrin 78a, explains that the verse can be read either as “a man who kills a human totally” or as “a man who kills anything of a man.” In the first version, if one attacker wounds a person and a second one finishes him off, the second attacker is the murderer even if the wounds inflicted by the first are potentially lethal. In the second version, the heirs of a person killed by a gang have indemnity claims against all gang members taking part in the attack even if none of them can be prosecuted for first degree murder.. Rebbi La said, even if it is deadly but a third person came and killed, the killer is guilty¹⁰³A tannaïtic statement in Sifra Emor Pereq 20(1).. “And it killed a man or a woman¹⁰⁴Ex. 21:29.,” just as a man lets his sons inherit his injury claims, so a woman lets her sons inherit her injury claims. But does not a man inherit from his wife¹⁰⁵How can her children (or in the absence of children, her paternal relatives) inherit anything from her if she is survived by her husband?? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi Hoshaiah, the father of the Mishnah, explain: One teaches here about weregilt which is due after death¹⁰⁶(Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai21:29, p. 181). The biblical right of inheritance by the husband, based on Num. 27:11, excludes future claims (Babli 42b; Bava batra 8:6 Note 129). Since there is no weregilt for a living person, the husband cannot inherit..

HALAKHAH: “A bull belonging to a woman, a bull belonging to orphans,” etc. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? “It was testified to before its owners and they did not watch it;¹¹⁸Ex. 21:29. Tosephta 4:6. The verse speaks of the notorious bull; one seems to understand that no ownerless bull can be brought to court.” those have no owners who could be responsible for damages. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: In matters of damages¹¹⁹Damage claims are possible only against humans. One must refer to a bull who did damage before its owner dedicated it to the Temple, or was property of a proselyte while the latter was still living., Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable. What about weregilt? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that he is liable for weregilt. But some say, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Just as they disagree for damages so they disagree for weregilt¹²⁰The language of the Tosephta seems to support R. Joḥanan. The formulation of the Babli, 44b (in the name of Rav Huna and a baraita) is inconclusive. (The Babli, 44a, reports a similar disagreement, between Rav and Samuel, referring to Mishnah 7.). Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: How does one actually act? He said to him, following Rebbi Hoshaia that in matters of damages, Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable; therefore, in matters of weregilt everybody agrees that he is liable.