Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Halakhah for Sanhedrin 57:37

אמר אביי לא שנו אלא דאמר משטה אני בך אבל אמר

It has been stated, likewise:R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name. [If A says to B,] 'You owe mea maneh',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A hundred zuz. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> and B admits it; and ifhe demands it from him the following day, and B answers, 'I was only jestingwith you,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because I knew you asked a thing which never happened. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> he is not liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Alfasi and Asheri omit the bracketed passage, and substitute: And he must instruct (them), 'Ye are my witnesses.' ');"><sup>35</sup></span> Soalso it has been taught: [If A says to B,] 'You owe me a maneh'; and B answers,'Yes, it is so;' but on the following day, when the former demands it, thelatter replies. 'I was but jesting with you,' he is not liable. Moreover,if he hid witnesses behind a fence and said to him: 'You owe me a maneh',and B answered, 'Yes;' and A added, 'Are you willing to make this admissionin the presence of so and so?' And he replied: 'I am afraid to do so, lestyou compel me to go to court;' and if on the following day, on his [A's]demanding it from him, B retorts; 'I was only jesting with you', he is notliable. But we do not plead [thus] on behalf of aMesith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], an inciter to idolatry; v. Glos. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> Mesith? Who mentionedhim?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it has no bearing on the discussion. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> — The text is defective, andshould read thus: If he himself did not plead[this],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he was only jesting with him. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> we do not plead it for him.But in capital charges, even if he himself does notplead,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Circumstances that would help to prove his innocence. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> we plead on his behalf. Yetno such plea is made on behalf of a Mesith. Wherein does a Mesith differ?— R. Hama b. Hanina said: I heard it said in alecture<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], the lecture held on the Sabbath before Festivals, Rashi, B.B. 22a. V. Zunz, GV 349, n.g.] ');"><sup>40</sup></span> by R. Hiyya b. Abba: A Mesithis different, because the Divine Law states, Neither shall thine eyes pityhim; neither shalt thou concealhim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIII, 9; this refers to a Mesith. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> R. Samuel b. Nahman said in R. Jonathan's name: Whence do we know that wedo not plead on behalf of a Mesith? — From the [story of] the ancientserpent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Garden of Eden. Cf. Gen. III. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> For R. Simlai said: Theserpent had many pleas to put forward but did not do so. Then why did notthe Holy One, blessed be He, plead on its behalf? — Because it offered noneitself. What could it have said [to justify itself?] — 'When the words ofthe teacher and those of the pupil [are contradictory], whose words shouldbe hearkened to; surely the teacher's!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Eve, evens though seduced by me, should have obeyed the command of God. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> Hezekiah said: Whence do we know that he who adds [to the word of God] subtracts[from it]? — From the verse, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it neithershall ye touch it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. III, 3. Eve added to God's words by telling the serpent that she was not even permitted to touch the tree. The serpent then pushed her into contact with the tree and told her: See, just as death did not ensue from the touch, so it will not follow from eating of it. V. Rashi a.l. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> R. Mesharshia said: [We derive it] from the following verse: Ammathayim [twocubits] and a half shall be hislength.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXV, 17. If [H] be decapitated it will read [H] ([H]) two hundred. Thus by adding the [H] the number will be reduced to two. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> R. Ashi said: From this:'Ashte-'esreh [eleven]curtains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXVI, 7. By taking away the [H] from [H] [11], it reads [H] [12]. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> Abaye said: The above ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where witnesses were not present by special appointment he might plead that he was joking. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> holdsgood only if he says: 'I was only joking with you'; but if he pleads:

Sefer HaChinukh

the laws of one given power of attorney (Bava Kamma 70a) towards the one he was appointed against and towards the one who appointed him, and the wording of appointment - which is, "take it to court and own it and take it for yourself"; and [that] the law of one who says, "I did not take out a loan," is as if he said, "I did not repay [it]" (Shevuot 41b); the laws of one who is assumed to be [dishonest] (Bava Metzia 17a); the law of one to whom the court says, "Go out and pay him," and he says, "I payed," or [if they say,] "You are obligated to give [it] to him"; the one who says, "Do not repay me without witnesses," or "[Repay me] in front of x and y," and what the law would be if they went to the country of the sea (far away); the law of whether witnesses of repayment are effective for a [borrower] who trusts the creditor with a deed as if there were two witnesses (Shevuot 42b); the law of in which matter a person can [effectively] say, "I was fooling you," or if a person cannot say [it at all] (Sanhedrin 29a); the law of the one who [wants to] extract [something] from his fellow, and the things wherein [there is validity to continued] possession - such that the one who claims them is [considered] the one who [wants to] extract them; the laws of possession (Bava Batra 28a); the laws of collections, for what do we go down to (impound) his properties; the laws of guarantees (Bava Batra 176b); the laws of protests (Bava Batra 38b); the law of the people against whom we do not establish possession, and that do not establish possession towards another; and all the laws of [making the first offer to neighbors]. And the rest of its many details - are [all] elucidated in [Bava] Kamma, mostly in the third chapter, and in [Bava] Metzia, mostly in the first chapter, and in the eighth of [Bava] Batra, and in Shevuot in the fifth, sixth and seventh chapters, and a few laws are in many scattered places in the Gemara (see Tur, Choshen Mishpat 89-94, etc.)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse