Talmud su Levitico 19:14

MISHNAH: A man may say to another, weed with me and I shall be weeding with you, hoe with me and I shall be hoeing with you, but he shall not tell him, weed with me and I shall be hoeing with you, hoe with me and I shall be weeding with you. All the dry season is one, all the wet season is not; one may not say to him, plough with me in the dry season and I shall be ploughing with you in the wet season¹⁸³One may not offer to exchange agricultural work against agricultural work if these would represent vastly different expenditures if they needed hired hands..
Rabban Gamliel says, there exists predated and postdated interest. How is this? If one indended to borrow from him and sent him [a gift] saying, so you should lend me; that is predated interest. If one had borrowed and returned the money when he sent him [a gift] saying, that is for your money which was not earning for you while it was with me; that is postdated interest. Rebbi Simeon says, there exists verbal interest. One should not say to him, you should know that X came from place Y¹⁸⁴To let the debtor take care of the guest for the creditor..
The following transgress prohibitions: The creditor, and the debtor, and the guarantor, and the witnesses; the Sages say, also the scribe. They transgress “do not give,¹⁸⁷Lev. 25:37.” and “do not take from him,¹⁸⁸Lev. 25:36” and “do not be a creditor,¹⁸⁹Ex. 22:24.” and “do not burden him with interest,¹⁸⁹Ex. 22:24.” and “before a blind man do not put an obstacle; and fear your God, I am the Eternal.¹⁹⁰Lev. 19:14. While the preceding verses spell out the guilt of the parties, this verse explains the guilt of the scribe, who is supposedly learned in the law and has to know that he participates in an illegal activity. The extended interpretation of Lev. 19:14 is one of the signs of pharisaic doctrine; it is intimated that the Sadducees, the opponents of the Sages, would absolve the scribe from guilt.”

MISHNAH: “I put an oath upon you, I command you, I bind you,” these are liable¹⁰⁶These are valid versions of a summons to testify.. “By Heaven and Earth,” they are not liable¹⁰⁷“Heaven” is not a sobriquet of God’s Name.. “By א-ד, by י-ה, by the Almighty, by Sabaoth, by the Gracious and Merciful, by the Forbearing and Most Benevolent,” and all substitute names¹⁰⁸א-ד stands for Adonay, י-ה for YHWH. A substitute name is any translation of any Name of Attribute of God in any vernacular., they are liable. One who curses by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable¹⁰⁹The crime of blasphemy (Lev. 24:15) refers only to blaspheming the Name (Sanhedrin 7:14).. One who curses his father or mother by any of these is liable, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages declare him not liable¹¹⁰The same holds for cursing father and mother (Ex. 21:17).. One who curses himself or another person by any of these violates a prohibition¹¹¹Lev. 19:14; Sifra Qedošim Parashah 2(13).. “May God punish you, so may God punish you,” this is the imprecation mentioned in the Torah. “May He not punish you, may He bless you, may He do well with you,” Rebbi Meїr declares liable¹¹²If the claimant says “may He not punish you if you come to testify”, or “may He bless you if you come to testify”, for R. Meїr this implies the opposite, i. e., “may he punish you if you do not come to testify” etc. but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable¹¹³For R. Jehudah, what has been said explicitly is the only thing that counts.
The Mishnah versions in the Babli and in the independent Mishnah mss. all read “but the Sages declare not liable.” It is clear from the Halakhah that this also was the reading in the Yerushalmi underlying the Halakhah since it was necessary to state that the Mishnah represents R. Jehudah’s opinion..

BARAITHA. A man should not send to his fellow a cask of water⁵⁰Instead of water it would be better to read ‘wine’ as in Ḥul. 94a (Sonc. ed., p. 528). There the story is related of a tragedy which followed as the consequence of such an act of deception. as oil.
GEMARA. What is the reason? It is forbidden to do anything which may give him offence; as it is written, Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind.⁵¹Lev. 19, 14. The question was asked: May one send to a Gentile a thigh which has been cooked with the sinew?⁵²Contrary to the Law of Gen. 32, 33. It is obvious that [one may not send to a Gentile] a limb cut from a living animal, for the master said:⁵³Sanh. 56a (Sonc. ed., pp. 381f.). This is one of the seven Noachian laws. The sons of Noah⁵⁴i.e. non-Jews. were forbidden to eat a limb cut from a living animal; therefore [one who sent a Gentile meat with the sinew of the thigh would commit an offence] because of Nor put a stumbling-block before the blind. But here [with the sinew of the thigh] they were not [forbidden and a violation of the law would not arise]; or perhaps there is a difference between the two cases! Come and hear:^54a(54a) Ḥul. 93b (Sonc. ed., p. 525). A man may send to a Gentile a thigh wherein is the sinew.