Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Sanhedrin 49:19

וצריכא דאי תנא תולה בדעת עצמו התם הוא דלא גמר ומקני דאמר

and dismissedhim. Thereupon he went and let his hair and nailsgrow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a sign of penitence. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Then R. Nahman thought ofreinstating him, but Raba said to him: Perhaps he is only pretending[repentance]. What then is his remedy? — The course suggested by R. Iddib. Abin, who said: He who is suspected of passing terefoth cannot berehabilitated unless he leaves for a place where he is unknown and findsan opportunity of returning a lost article of considerable value, or ofcondemning as <i>terefah</i> meat of considerable value, belonging tohimself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So exhibiting his staunch observance of the law, even in the face of loss. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> AND PIGEON TRAINERS: What are PIGEON TRAINERS? —Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Babylon. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> it has been interpreted, [ofone who says to another], 'If your pigeon passes mine [you win].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A pigeon-racer. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> R. Hamab. Oshaia said: It means anAra.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or Ada, a fowler, one who puts up decoy-birds to attract other birds from another's dove-cote. [Ara is connected by Ginzberg, L., with the Assyrian aru, denoting by 'gin', 'snare'; v. Krauss, S., Sanhedrin-Makkot, p. 124.] ');"><sup>22</sup></span> On what ground does he whointerprets [the phrase to mean] 'pigeon-racer' disagree with him who interpretsit as Ara? — His answer is that the conduct of an Ara [is regarded as robbery]merely from the standpoint ofneighbourliness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'ways of peace', but not its law, since birds may, and often do change their homes of their own will. According to strict law, these birds are considered as semi-wild, and therefore ownerless. Yet it is robbery on account of 'the ways of peace'. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> And he who interpretsit as 'Ara', why does he not accept this view [sc. 'if thy pigeon etc.]?— His answer is, in that case it is identical with a dice player. And theformer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he answer this objection? ');"><sup>24</sup></span> — He [the Tanna of theMishnah] deals with a case where he relies on his own capabilities. [i.e.,dice-playing] and a case where he relies on the capabilities of his pigeon.And both are necessary. For had he dealt only with the case where a man reliesupon himself, [I might have supposed that] only there was his promise withoutserious intent, since he thinks,

Teshuvot Maharam

A ritual examiner (of slaughtered cows) who passed as kosher (ritually fit for eating) two or three cows that were ritually unfit, must be removed from his post until he completely repents of his act. He should be punished by flagellation or by a fine, for what he has done, according to his circumstances; such punishment to be further determined by the seriousness of the crime, whether it was committed through negligence or ignorance, or with vicious intent.
SOURCES: P. 294.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A claimed that he gave B a coat of mail and thigh plates as security for a loan. He repaid that loan, and therefore demands back his security. B answered that he received from A only a coat of mail which he was ready to return upon the latter's payment of money still due B. Upon hearing B's reply, A said to the judges that he knew that the law required them to charge B with an oath, but that B was not qualified to take an oath since he was a notorious thief and was suspected of swearing falsely. A made a public announcement that whoever knew anything that might disqualify B from taking an oath, should appear and testify before the court and the community leaders, in accordance with the Biblical injunction (Leviticus, 5, 1). Many witnesses appeared, but the testimony of only three persons was valid. One of these testified that B had stolen one pound from him; the second said that B had testified against him in a Gentile court and thus had caused him to suffer damages; and the third testified that B had bound himself by a herem to redeem his pledged horse, and had failed to do so. Since these misdemeanors had happened long ago and B might have repented since then, was the testimony of these witnesses sufficient to disqualify B from taking an oath?
A. B should be disqualified from taking an oath because of the testimony of the first and third witnesses. The Talmud (B. K. 62a) came to no conclusion regarding the trustworthiness of an informer; therefore, the testimony of the second witness is of no consequence.
SOURCES: Pr. 978.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse