Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Mga Bilang 35:30: Jerusalem Talmud Sotah, Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin & Jerusalem Talmud Makkot

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: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said?” ⁵⁴The argument refers to all Mishnaiot 9–13. The requirement of “two witnesses or three witnesses” for criminal convictions is written in Deut. 17:6, 19:15. (In addition, rendering judgment in a criminal trial on the basis of a single testimony is forbidden in Num. 35:30.) While in both verses of Deut. the background clearly is that of criminal trials, the redundancy is taken as a sign that in civil trials (not on arbitration panels) the biblical rules of evidence of criminal trials have to be followed. The Babli disagrees in the name of Rav Nahman (6b). It should have been said for civil trials and would not have been needed for criminal trials. If it had been said for civil trials, not for criminal trials, I would have said that in the relaxed standards of civil trials three [witnesses] may prove two [witnesses] to be plotting but two may not prove three to be plotting. From where even a hundred? The verse says, witnesses⁴²The repetition, two witnesses or three witnesses, when it could have been “two or three witnesses”, implies that any number of witnesses have the same status as do two.. Or if it had been said for criminal trials, not for civil trials, I would have said that according to the stringent standards of criminal trials two [witnesses] may prove three [witnesses] to be plotting; three may not prove two to be plotting⁵⁵It seems to be clear that in thissentence the positions of “two” and “three” have to be switched, resulting in a sentence completely parallel to the preceding one.. From where even a hundred? The verse says, witnesses⁴²The repetition, two witnesses or three witnesses, when it could have been “two or three witnesses”, implies that any number of witnesses have the same status as do two..