출애굽기 22:20의 탈무드

And a stranger [ger] shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him:¹Ex. 22, 20. you shall not wrong him in speech or oppress him in money dealings. Do not say to him,²What follows is according to MS.K. For Bel, etc., cf. Isa. 46, 1, Bel boweth down (קרס), Nebo stoopeth, alluding to Babylonian deities. ‘Yesterday you were worshipping Bel, Ḳores and Nebo, and till now pig’s flesh was between your teeth, and now you stand up and speak with me!’ And whence [do I learn] [not] to wrong him? He can retort, For ye were strangers in the land of Egypt?³Ex. loc. cit. [The more correct version is found in Mekilta ad loc.: ‘If you wrong him he is able to wrong you? Therefore there is a saying, For ye were strangers, etc.’ Hence R. Nathan used to say: Do not taunt your neighbour with the blemish which you yourself have.⁴[Cf. B.M. 59b (Sonc. ed.,p. 356).]

MISHNAH: Just as there is cheating in trade so there is cheating by words. One should not say to another: how much for this object, if he is not interested in buying. If somebody was a repentant sinner, one should not say to him: remember your earlier deeds. If somebody was the son of a proselyte, one may not say to him: remember the deeds of your forefathers, for it is written¹³³Ex. 22:20; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 18, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 210.: “A sojourner you may neither cheat nor oppress, for you were sojourners in the Land of Egypt.”
One¹³⁴The farmer. does not mix produce, not even new with new; no need to say new with old. In truth¹³⁵“In truth” characterizes undisputed practice. they permitted to mix strong wine with weak since it improves it. One¹³⁶The winery. does not mix wine lees with wine but one delivers the lees with the wine. If water became mixed with somebody’s wine, he should not sell it in the store unless he declares it, and not to a trader for that one would only use it to trick people; at a place where they usually put water into the wine they may do so.
The trader may buy from five threshing floors and put into one chest, wine from five wine presses and put into one barrel¹³⁷Greek πίθος., on condition that he not intend to mix¹³⁸He may only pour wines of the same kind into one barrel.. Rebbi Jehudah says, a store owner should not distribute roasted kernels and nuts to children because he induces them to come to him, but the Sages permit. He should not reduce the price, but the Sages say, may he be remembered as a benefactor¹³⁹The Sages oppose restrictions which hinder competition.. He should not clean the groats following Abba Shaul, but the Sages permit it. However, they agree that he may not clean the upper layer of the chest¹⁴⁰A store may not dress up the upper layer of merchandise, which is seen by the buyer, and then sell lesser quality from below. This is cheating. since that gives a dishonest impression. One may not put makeup on humans¹⁴¹Slaves one offers for sale., animals, or vessels.

From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it¹⁸²Lev. 18:23. The entire paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted., etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death¹⁸³Lev.20:15. The corresponding verse for a woman is 20:16.. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them^15,Lev. 20:12. From Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Babli 54a.¹⁸⁴The expression is used only in v. 16. It is implied that the punishment for male bestiality cannot be less than that of female bestiality.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source¹⁷⁹It is assumed that qadeš means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12). and Rebbi Aqiba from his source¹⁸⁵R. Ismael includes bestiality in the actions of a qadeš. R. Aqiba always refers to Lev. 18:29.. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael¹⁸⁶The Babli disagrees and finds the passive participant in bestiality in Ex. 22:18.. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba¹⁸⁷In Lev. 20., but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation¹⁸⁸The worshipper of the forces of nature is banned Ex. 22:19, but as adherent of foreign worship he is stoned. It is implied that the death penalty decreed in the preceding verse, anybody lying with an animal shall be put to death, for the passive participant in bestiality also must be executed by stoning.. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice¹⁸⁹In the Babli, 54b, the attributions are switched. One has to follow the classical commentaries in correcting the Yerushalmi following the Babli since, as explained in Notes 175–178, R. Aqiba finds the prohibition of active and passive homosexuality in the same verse whereas R. Ismael defines the passive homosexual as qadeš. Therefore, combined active and passive homosexual activity violates one verse for R. Aqiba, two for R. Ismael.. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice¹⁹⁰For both R. Aqiba and R. Ismael both Lev. 18:22 (or 23) and Ex. 22:18 are violated. The Babli disagrees, 54b.. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult¹⁹¹Sexual relations with males under the age of nine years and one day, and females under three years and one day, are not considered as sexual activities; cf. Ketubot1:3 Notes 147,152.; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age¹⁹²This does not refer to bestiality but to homosexuality. Homosexual relations of a male with an underage boy are not punishable unless the boy is at least three years and one day of age, i. e., that a valid sex act would have been performed if the child had been a girl. In the Babli, 54b/55a, Samuel derives this from Lev. 18:22 where homosexual acts are called lyings in woman’s way..

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself before them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god²⁶¹Ex. 34:14.; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail²⁶²Since in the Ten Commandments prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, the order really should be detail, principle, principle. Also, in our text of the Introduction to Sifra, “principle, detail, principle has to be judged in light of the detail,” adding anything similar to detail. The passage supports the thesis of Menahem Cahana [קוים לתולדות התפתחותה ספר זיכרון ,של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים לתרצה ליפשיץ, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 173–216] that only the list of hermeneutical rules is original but the detailed interpretation of the rules is Babylonian (following R. Aqiba), never accepted in the Yerushalmi. The latter does not differentiate between כְּלָל וּפְרָט,פְּרָט וּכְלָל,כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, and in all cases reduces the validity of the principle to the case of the detail. The question naturally deserves no answer since it is not כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל but פְּרָט וּכְלָל וּכְלָל, which is not the subject of any hermeneutical rule.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such²⁶⁰Deut. 12:4. The paragraph deals with the destruction of places of pagan worship. It is interpreted to mean that anything similar to Temple worship, even if executed in an unacceptable way, is forbidden as pagan worship. Sifry Deut. 81 follows the Yerushalmi: “Anything which cannot be sacrificed in the Temple but somebody sacrificed it as foreign worship, if its kind might be sacrificed to God he is guilty; otherwise he cannot be prosecuted.”, a principle. One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned²⁶³Ex. 22:19., a detail. Only for the Eternal alone²⁶³Ex. 22:19., He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included²⁶⁴This statement is not found elsewhere in talmudic texts. But in R. Aqiba’s system of additions (רֵבּוּי) and subtractions (מְעוּט), addition + subtraction + addition implies that almost everything corresponding to the broad description of the additions is included (Tosephta Ševu`ot 1:7, Babli Nazir35b).? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses²⁶⁸Ex. 32:8, speaking of the Golden Calf.? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who (prostrates himself)²⁶⁶It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship. do not exemplify actions.