Talmud su Giosuè 7:25

MISHNAH: Ten cubits’ distance from the place of stoning one tells him: confess! So is the way of any dying person to confess, since anyone who confesses has part in the World to Come. For so we find about Achan towhom Joshua said, my son, honor the Eternal, the God of Israel, confess to Him, and tell me what you did, do not hide it from me. Achan answered Joshua and said, in fact I sinned against the Eternal, the God of Israel, and such and such I did²⁶Jos. 7:19–20.. From where that his confession atoned for him? For it is said, Joshua said to him, how did you devastate us; may the Eternal devastate you on this day²⁷Jos. 7:25.. This day you are devastated; you are not devastated in the Future World.
If he does not know how to confess, one tells him, say: “My death shall be atonement for all my sins.” Rebbi Jehudah said, if he knows that he was the victim of perjurers, he says: “My death shall be atonement for all my sins except this one.⁴¹For which he is being stoned.” They told him, if so, everybody would say so to declare themselves innocent⁴²And to declare the witnesses perjured and the judges bribed or incompetent..

“But the Sages say, indeterminate heave in Judea is prohibited, in Galilee permitted, since Galileans do not know of Temple heave.” But if they did know it, the indeterminate would be forbidden⁶⁶The meaning of vows has to be determined by popular usage. Since learned people are not supposed to make vows, it is clear that the interpretation of vows depends on the meaning of the words in the vernacular, independent of the place where the vow was made.. “Indeterminate bans in Judea are permitted, in Galilee prohibited, since Galileans do not know of priest’s bans.” But if they did know it, the indeterminate would be permitted. Here you say permitted, but there you say forbidden⁶⁷This is an attempt to explain the rules in legal terminology, without appeal to the vernacular. The indeterminate vow would be a case of doubt; in one case one rules that doubt removes the vow, in the other that it confirms the vow. This is the attitude of the Babli, 19b.. Rebbi Eleazar says, these are statements of two Tannaïm⁶⁸This is the solution of the Babli and Tosephta 1:6 which ascribe the statement on bans to R. Eleazar ben R. Ṣadoq. This solution is appropriate for the Yerushalmi, the Munich and Cambridge mss. of the Babli, and the quotes in many Medieval authors, which ascribe both statements to “the Sages” who would be free to rule in one case with R. Jehudah and in the other with R. Eleazar ben R. Ṣadoq. But in the printed Babli which, together with most independent Mishnah mss., attributes the statement of the Sages to R. Jehudah, the two-Tanna solution, rejected in the Yerushalmi but given in the Babli in the name of the Fourth Century Amora Abbai, is rather forced.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, all is from one Tanna, following the one who said⁶⁹Mishnah Arakhin 8:6, opinion of R. Jehudah ben Bathyra.: “indeterminate bans are for the upkeep of the Temple.” But for the one who said⁷⁰The anonymous Sages. The Babli, Arakhin 29a, states that in the absence of a Temple, bans for the upkeep of the Temple can be redeemed by pennies., “indeterminate bans are for priests,” even in Galilee they would be permitted. In Galilee where they are used to invoke Akhan’s ban⁷¹Jos. 7:25–26, the expression of an absolute and irredeemable prohibition of all use., you have to say forbidden; in Judea where they are not used to invoke Akhan’s ban, you have to say permitted.