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:
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
First let me explain a few of the finer nuances in the verses which forbid man to eat from the tree of knowledge. The Torah twice says: ממנו, "from it," ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות "From the tree of knowledge of good and evil, do not eat from it, for on the day you eat from it you will surely become mortal" (Genesis 2,17). During the conversation between Eve and the serpent, however, the word ממנו occurs only once, i.e. ומפרי העץ אשר בתוך הגן לא תאכלו ממנו ולא תגעו בו פן תמותון, "And from the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, the Lord has said 'do not eat from it and do not touch it lest you die'" (Genesis 3,3). Another difficulty in the text is the fact that in the original command by G–d we find the words “2,16) ”עץ…ומעץ הדעת and 2,17), and also the serpent itself refers to "the tree itself" (3,1). Eve, on the other hand, mentioned only a prohibition of the fruit of the tree (3,3). Only afterwards do we read in verse 6 of the conversation between Eve and the serpent: ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל, "the woman saw that the tree was good for eating." Another difficulty is the fact that surely Eve was an extremely intelligent woman. What could have prompted her to tell the serpent of an additional prohibition, that of touching the tree, when such a prohibition had not been issued by G–d? A further difficulty is that since Eve knew that G–d had not prohibited touching the tree, why did the fact that the serpent pushed her against the tree and she did not die influence her to the extent that she accepted the serpent's argument that just as touching the tree had not proved fatal to her, eating from it would not have fatal consequences either? (compare Bereshit Rabbah 19,3 that the serpent pushed Eve against the tree). How did Eve deduce a prohibition from something that had not been commanded? Yet another difficulty is the wording of the punishment. The Torah quotes G–d as saying to Adam: ארורה האדמה בעבורך, "The Earth will be cursed on your account" (Genesis 3,17). This means that Earth was punished at that time for a former misdemeanour. Why was Earth not punished at the time it failed to produce the kind of trees it had been commanded to produce?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Orchot Tzadikim
And there is another sin which is called tale-bearing. Now, who is a tale bearer? One who loads himself with stories about others and goes from one to another and says, "Thus did so and so say," and "Thus and thus did I hear about that one." Even though what he tells is true, this kind of thing destroys the world. And we have been warned about this, as it is written, "Thou shall not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people" (Lev. 19:16). And what is tale-bearing? One who reveals to another things that were said about him in secret, and we have learned (Sanh. 31a): "Whence do we know that when a judge comes out he must not say, 'I was for acquittal, while my colleagues were for condemnation; but what could I do, seeing that they were in the majority?' " Scripture states, "Thou shall not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people" (Lev. 19:16), and further, "He that goeth about as a tale-bearer revealeth secrets" (Prov. 11:13).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
This residual pollutant returned to infect Israel as soon as they had made the golden calf. Whatever negative influences were found in the serpent were present also in the golden calf. This applies to the overall influence of the serpent or the golden calf respectively, and to some specific manifestations. To illustrate: Our sages say that most of mankind is guilty of robbery whereas a minority is guilty of sexual aberrations. All of mankind is guilty of אבק לשון הרע, different shades of slander. The truth of this statement is demonstrated when we look at what happened during the episode of the golden calf. The slander became manifest when the perpetrators described the golden calf as "these are your gods, O Israel" (32,4). The sin of sexual excesses is alluded to in 32,6 where the Torah tells us: ויקומו לצחק, "they rose to dance" (the implication is an erotic one, compare Rashi). Regarding the sin of robbery, the Talmud tells us in Berachot 35 that anyone who enjoys the pleasures of this world without first reciting a benediction acknowledging and thanking G–d as the Provider of these pleasures is considered as having robbed both G–d and Israel (alternate version: father and mother). We also have a verse in Proverbs 28,24, which describes a person who robs father and mother -while claiming that such action is no sin- as a companion to a destroyer. The Talmud goes on to describe G–d as our "father," and the כנסת ישראל, "the spiritual concept of the people of Israel," as the mother. As a practical example of such a destroyer the Talmud cites king Jerobam who destroyed the affinity of the people of Israel with their Heavenly Father by placing golden calves on the way to Jerusalem, preventing the pilgrims from making the pilgrimage to the Temple without first making an obeisance to these calves. We therefore see that the construction of the golden calf was an act of robbery vis-a-vis G–d. It robbed Israel of the abundance that G–d used to shower upon them. Expressed differently; The שפע, abundance from on high, was withheld because of פשע, sin. Our failure to acknowledge G–d's gifts would make us guilty of a similar sin. As a result of such considerations Moses explained to the Levites who were charged with carrying out the executions of the idol worshippers that by killing the guilty they were actually the cause of G–d bestowing His blessing on them (32,29). We therefore notice that the three sins we mentioned were all part of the episode of the golden calf. We find an allusion to this in the text in the very letters of the word עגל as acronyms for the three types of sin, i.e. עריות, גזל, לשון הרע. When our sages stated that there is no sin for which the penalty does not include some part of the punishment for the sin of the golden calf (Sanhedrin 102), they simply meant that since every sinner belongs to the ones guilty of either the sins most people are guilty of, or to the ones a minority are guilty of, such a person has once again become guilty of part of the sin committed by the Jews during the episode of the golden calf. We find the same in the story of the encounter between the serpent and man in גן עדן. Adam and Eve took fruit which did not belong to them; they were guilty of robbery. Eve was guilty of a sexual offence because the serpent mated with her. The serpent was guilty of slander and seduction, a sin which is irreversible.
