Talmud sobre Números 35:30

It was stated²¹Babli 2b, Tosephta 1:1.: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, he declares his jealousy by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony; he takes her to drink on the testimony of two witnesses.” It is said here: “For he found in her a word of nakedness¹⁶Deut. 24:1.”; “finding” anywhere has to be validated by witnesses²²Everywhere the Torah uses the expression כִּי מָצָא, כִּי יִמָּצֵא “if it happened” the implication is that the case must be heard before a duly constituted court.. How does Rebbi Eliezer explain “a word”? A circumstance that brings into the habit of nakedness²³A “word (or case, matter) of nakedness” is not nakedness itself.. May a single witness let him take her to drink²⁴This seems to refer to the first version (the Mishnah) of R. Eliezer’s position. The earlier argument (Note 20) showed that the husband is empowered to bring his wife to the Temple on his own testimony; one still needs an argument to permit a single witness to a secluded rendez-vous to allow the husband to bring his wife to the Temple.? His own testimony can never obligate him to swear in money matters but it will let him take her to drink²⁵R. David Fraenckel points out that this sentence is ambiguous. It either can mean that a person’s own word in money matters can never bring onto him a biblical obligation to swear, for if he agrees that he owes money he pays and if he disputes the [entire] claim and the other party has neither witnesses nor documents, no oath is due. But it also may mean that a statement of a claimant can never obligate the defendant to swear., a single witness who will obligate him to swear in money matters²⁶Num. 35:30: “A single witness should not testify in a death penalty case” is interpreted to mean that in money matters a single witness in support of a claim of money obligates the defendant to swear (Sifry Num. 161; the argument here is hinted at in Sifry Deut. 188). not so much more? May a relative bring her to drink²⁷No relative can be a witness in court in any proceeding. Therefore, it is most irregular that the husband’s word should carry any weight in any proceedings.? Who is a closer relative than her husband? May a hearsay witness bring her to drink? What is the difference between him and a relative? A relative may be disabled today but he might be enabled later²⁷No relative can be a witness in court in any proceeding. Therefore, it is most irregular that the husband’s word should carry any weight in any proceedings., a hearsay witness is not acceptable either today or later²⁸While a woman may rely on hearsay testimony about her husband’s death (Yebamot 16:5 ff.), this is an extra-judicial proceeding. In judicial proceedings, hearsay testimony is strictly excluded..

HALAKHAH: “The order of beheading,” etc. ⁴¹Babli 52b; Tosephta 9:11.“Rebbi Jehudah agrees that there is no death uglier than this but the Torah said⁴²Lev. 18:3., in their statutes you shall not walk.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, also it was stated thus: One shall murder the murderer⁴³Num. 35:30: Any homicide; following witnesses one shall murder the murderer., the way he murdered. I could think that if he killed with a sword, one should kill him with a sword, with a rod one should kill him with a rod? Avenging is written here⁵Ex. 21:20. The slave slain by his master shall be avenged. Babli 52b; the Babli text in Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 273, dR. Simeon bar Iohai p. 175., and there it is written: I shall bring over you a sword which avenges the vengeance of the Covenant⁶Lev. 26:25.. Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. I could think that he⁴⁴The avenger. should kill him between the arms? It is said here⁴⁵Deut. 19:19. Since this refers to perjured witnesses, it includes all kinds of death penalties., you shall eliminate the evil from your midst, and it is said there⁴⁶Deut. 21:9., you shall eliminate the innocent blood from your midst. Elimination, elimination; breaking the neck, breaking the neck⁴⁷By the doctrine of invariability of lexemes the meaning of “elimination” must be the same in Deut. 19:19 and Deut. 21:9. That of “breaking the neck” in Deut. 21:4 is defined by “neck” in Lev. 5:8. Since elimination in Deut. 21 is by breaking the neck, Deut. 19:19 also must refer to the neck. Since strangulation is not mentioned in the Pentateuch, the only method of execution to which this may refer is beheading.. Since elimination here is at the neck, also there it is at the neck. Since breaking the neck there implies chopping off the head, also here chopping off the head.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are decided on the same day,” etc. It was stated⁴⁷A similar baraita is quoted in the Babli, 33b, where, however, a dissent is noted.: A witness may not argue either for acquittal or conviction⁴⁸In the formulation of the Babli: A witness cannot turn judge.. From where this? A witness shall not argue about anybody on trial for his life⁴⁹Num. 35:30. In the Babli, R. Yose ben Jehudah reads the verse only as prohibiting a witness from arguing for conviction.. And from where that he himself may not argue either for acquittal or conviction? The verse says, one shall not argue about anybody on trial for his life⁵⁰This is not a verse. Num. 35:30 reads: A single witness may not argue … This is split into two sentences: A witness may not, a single person may not.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, sometimes a person sees himself set up by perjured witnesses and he speaks much lest he be put to death⁵¹While in the Babli, 34a, R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted as sustaining the opinion that the accused may not testify for himself since he is party to the proceedings, here it seems clear that he gives the accused the right to point out to the judges the fact that he is accused because of perjured (or otherwise tainted) testimony..

BARAITHA.¹Keth. 16b-17a (Sonc. ed., pp. 92ff.). How does one dance²The meaning here is to recite the praises of a bride. before the bride? Beth Shammai said: The bride as she is; and Beth Hillel said: Beautiful and graceful bride!³Whether she possessed the qualifications or not. Beth Shammai said to Beth Hillel: Even if she is lame or blind? But it is written, Keep thee far from a false matter!⁴Ex. 23, 7; and there must be no departure from the truth even for a bride. Beth Hillel replied: If one has made a bad purchase, should one esteem it in his eyes or depreciate it? Surely one should esteem it in his eyes. Therefore Beth Hillel said: Always should the disposition of a man be pleasant towards his fellow-creatures.
GEMARA. But how can Beth Hillel [say of a bride] that she is beautiful when in fact she is not? [Beth Hillel can reply that in the circumstances people will understand it as] beautiful in her deeds and graceful in her person because we do not presume [to attribute to a person] what is unbecoming. And [what can] Beth Shammai [reply to this]? They can say: Is it written, ‘Keep far from a falsehood’? [It is written, From a false] matter,⁵lit. ‘word’. even if it be inexplicit.⁶It is therefore wrong to make a statement and expect people to take it in a different sense. And [what can] Beth Hillel [reply to this]? They can say: When the All-present declared, Keep thee far from a false matter, it is in connection with what follows, And the innocent and righteous slay thou not;⁷i.e. the context is giving false evidence which will lead to an innocent person being condemned to death. but where it is a case of preserving life⁸Creating a deeper love between husband and wife. it is in order [to depart from the strict truth]. Should the question be raised: Why do Beth Hillel in their refutation cite the example of ‘a bad purchase’, let them refute Beth Shammai from the Torah! For it has been taught:⁹Yeb. 65b (Sonc. ed., pp. 437f.); B.M. 87a (Sonc. ed., p. 502, n. 4). Great is peace, seeing that for its sake the Holy One, blessed be He, modified a statement. At first it is written, My lord being old,¹⁰Gen. 18, 12. and afterwards, I … who am old.¹¹ibid. 13. When Sarah was told by the angel that she would have a son she laughed to herself and exclaimed, My lord being old; but when God repeated what she had said to Abraham, not to hurt his feelings He changed the word to I … who am old. [Beth Hillel] can reply: There is no question [that what we say] is correct according to the Torah, but it is also correct by the standard of human beings; reverse it.¹²The text should read kelappë ’alyah, lit. ‘towards the tail’, i.e. reverse it, and the word which follows is an explanatory gloss (Jastrow s.v. ’alyah). The meaning is, To meet the question raised, it would be best in the Baraitha first to cite the passage from Genesis and then the example of ‘a bad purchase’.
[It was quoted above:] And the innocent and righteous slay thou not. Since you mention the innocent [may not be slain], obviously the righteous [may not]!¹³The term innocent has a negative connotation, viz. one who keeps away from evil; but the term righteous has both a negative and positive connotation, viz. one who keeps away from evil and does good. [It denotes] ‘innocent because of witnesses’ and ‘righteous because of disciples’.¹⁴These are forensic terms. I. Where two witnesses testify against a man that he had committed an offence but disagree on the details, the accused is discharged. E.g., two witnesses testify that they saw him worshipping idols; one says that he worshipped the sun and the other that it was the moon. Because the witnesses are in disagreement on details, the man is acquitted. He is technically termed naḳi me‘edim, ‘innocent (or, freed) because of [the disagreement of] witnesses’. II. In the criminal court young scholars sat in rows in front of the judges. When the trial ended and before the verdict was delivered, any one of these scholars could, if he knew anything in favour of the accused, come forward and speak for him, and if the judges accepted his statement they discharged the accused. He was then termed ẓaddiḳ min hattalmidim, ‘righteous (i.e. acquitted) because of the disciples’. If the disciple wished to testify against the accused, he was not permitted to do so. That would be a case of rasha‘ min hattalmidim, ‘condemned because of the disciples’, which was not allowed. Cf. Sanh. 33b-34a (Sonc. ed., p. 212) and Rashi ad loc. From this we learn [the ruling]: Do not put to death ‘the innocent because of witnesses’ and ‘the condemned because of disciples’. [Do you think,] ‘Condemned because of disciples’? Say, because of one of the disciples.¹⁵This refusal to listen to disciples’ statements against the accused holds good only when one disciple came forward. This procedure is based on Num. 35, 30; cf. Sanh. loc. cit.
Raba expounded: What is the meaning of what is written, For the Lord is righteous, He loveth righteousness; the upright shall behold His face?¹⁶Ps. 11, 7. If so, [the verse should read,] ‘He loveth the righteous’!¹⁷Since He is described as righteous, that is the wording which might have been expected. But [it is to be understood] as Raba interpreted it:¹⁸Cf. ‘Erub 19a (Sonc. ed., pp. 129f.). Abraham¹⁹So the text must be emended. V reads ‘from forty’. comes and brings [redemption to the wicked who are under sentence to suffer in Gehinnom, in agreement with] Resh Laḳish [who said: The fire of Gehinnom has no power over the transgressors in Israel,] or it may be deduced by an argument from minor to major [from the golden altar], as it is stated, Every one that is written unto life in Jerusalem.²⁰Isa. 4, 3. The text is obviously corrupt and is conjecturally reconstructed from the Talmud. Abraham, in freeing the sinners of Israel from Gehinnom, performs an act of righteousness which merits him the love of God, Who is righteous, especially as He has written unto [eternal] life every one in Jerusalem (i.e. the whole people of Israel).