criminal

On the morrow, at break of day, Alexander came to Trifina's house, and said: The governor and the people are waiting; bring the criminal forth.

Upon this there was a great noise in the amphitheatre; the beasts roared, and the people cried out, Bring in the criminal.

SENECA TO PAUL, greeting. Hail, my dearest Paul. Think you that I am not in sadness and grief, that your innocent people are so often condemned to suffer? And next, that the whole people thinks you so callous and so prone to crime, that you are supposed to be the authors of every misfortune in the city? Yet let us bear it patiently and content ourselves with what fortune brings, until supreme happiness puts an end to ourtroubles. Former ages had to bear the Macedonian, Philip’s son, and, after Darius, Dionysius, and our own times endured Gaius Caesar: to all of whom their will was law. The source of the many fires which Rome suffers is plain. But if humble men could speak out what the reason is, and if it were possible to speak without risk in this dark time, all would be plain to all. Christians and Jews are commonly executed as contrivers of the fire. Whoever the criminal is, whose pleasure is that of a butcher, and who veils himself with a lie, he is reserved for his due season: and as the best of men is sacrificed, the one for the many, so he, vowed to death for all, will be burned with fire. A hundred and thirty-two houses and four blocks have been burnt in six days; the seventh brought a pause. I pray you may be well, brother. Given the 5th of the kalends of April; Frugi and Bassus consuls (64).

And they said, "[Some] fast [for] two weeks. Others sacrifice their own children; others their wives, praising and humbling themselves among each other. Others sleep with men; others murder; yet others commit many sins and do criminal things. [And] the people standing [before] the altar invoke your [name]! And in all their sacrificing, they fill the [altar] with their offerings." When they said this, [they] fell silent because they were troubled.

When these letters were brought, the women left off their attempt for flying to the Romans, which they thought of while Herod was supposed to be dead; yet was not that purpose of theirs a secret; but when the king had conducted Antony on his way against the Partnians, he returned to Judea, when both his sister Salome and his mother informed him of Alexandra's intentions. Salome also added somewhat further against Joseph, though it was no more than a calumny, that he had often had criminal conversation with Mariamne. The reason of her saying so was this, that she for a long time bare her ill-will; for when they had differences with one another, Mariamne took great freedoms, and reproached the rest for the meanness of their birth. But Herod, whose affection to Mariamne was always very warm, was presently disturbed at this, and could not bear the torments of jealousy, but was still restrained from doing any rash thing to her by the love he had for her; yet did his vehement affection and jealousy together make him ask Mariamne by herself about this matter of Joseph; but she denied it upon her oath, and said all that an innocent woman could possibly say in her own defense; so that by little and little the king was prevailed upon to drop the suspicion, and left off his anger at her; and being overcome with his passion for his wife, he made an apology to her for having seemed to believe what he had heard about her, and returned her a great many acknowledgments of her modest behavior, and professed the extraordinary affection and kindness he had for her, till at last, as is usual between lovers, they both fell into tears, and embraced one another with a most tender affection. But as the king gave more and more assurances of his belief of her fidelity, and endeavored to draw her to a like confidence in him, Mariamne said, "Yet was not that command thou gavest, that if any harm came to thee from Antony, I, who had been no occasion of it, should perish with thee, a sign of thy love to me?" When these words were fallen from her, the king was shocked at them, and presently let her go out of his arms, and cried out, and tore his hair with his own hands, and said, that "now he had an evident demonstration that Joseph had had criminal conversation" with his wife; for that he would never have uttered what he had told him alone by himself, unless there had been such a great familiarity and firm confidence between them. And while he was in this passion he had like to have killed his wife; but being still overborne by his love to her, he restrained this his passion, though not without a lasting grief and disquietness of mind. However, he gave order to slay Joseph, without permitting him to come into his sight; and as for Alexandra, he bound her, and kept her in custody, as the cause of all this mischief.

When these letters were brought, the women left off their attempt for flying to the Romans, which they thought of while Herod was supposed to be dead; yet was not that purpose of theirs a secret; but when the king had conducted Antony on his way against the Partnians, he returned to Judea, when both his sister Salome and his mother informed him of Alexandra's intentions. Salome also added somewhat further against Joseph, though it was no more than a calumny, that he had often had criminal conversation with Mariamne. The reason of her saying so was this, that she for a long time bare her ill-will; for when they had differences with one another, Mariamne took great freedoms, and reproached the rest for the meanness of their birth. But Herod, whose affection to Mariamne was always very warm, was presently disturbed at this, and could not bear the torments of jealousy, but was still restrained from doing any rash thing to her by the love he had for her; yet did his vehement affection and jealousy together make him ask Mariamne by herself about this matter of Joseph; but she denied it upon her oath, and said all that an innocent woman could possibly say in her own defense; so that by little and little the king was prevailed upon to drop the suspicion, and left off his anger at her; and being overcome with his passion for his wife, he made an apology to her for having seemed to believe what he had heard about her, and returned her a great many acknowledgments of her modest behavior, and professed the extraordinary affection and kindness he had for her, till at last, as is usual between lovers, they both fell into tears, and embraced one another with a most tender affection. But as the king gave more and more assurances of his belief of her fidelity, and endeavored to draw her to a like confidence in him, Mariamne said, "Yet was not that command thou gavest, that if any harm came to thee from Antony, I, who had been no occasion of it, should perish with thee, a sign of thy love to me?" When these words were fallen from her, the king was shocked at them, and presently let her go out of his arms, and cried out, and tore his hair with his own hands, and said, that "now he had an evident demonstration that Joseph had had criminal conversation" with his wife; for that he would never have uttered what he had told him alone by himself, unless there had been such a great familiarity and firm confidence between them. And while he was in this passion he had like to have killed his wife; but being still overborne by his love to her, he restrained this his passion, though not without a lasting grief and disquietness of mind. However, he gave order to slay Joseph, without permitting him to come into his sight; and as for Alexandra, he bound her, and kept her in custody, as the cause of all this mischief.

When Cleopatra had obtained thus much, and had accompanied Antony in his expedition to Armenia as far as Euphrates, she returned back, and came to Apamia and Damascus, and passed on to Judea, where Herod met her, and farmed of her parts of Arabia, and those revenues that came to her from the region about Jericho. This country bears that balsam, which is the most precious drug that is there, and grows there alone. The place bears also palm trees, both many in number, and those excellent in their kind. When she was there, and was very often with Herod, she endeavored to have criminal conversation with the king; nor did she affect secrecy in the indulgence of such sort of pleasures; and perhaps she had in some measure a passion of love to him; or rather, what is most probable, she laid a treacherous snare for him, by aiming to obtain such adulterous conversation from him: however, upon the whole, she seemed overcome with love to him. Now Herod had a great while borne no good-will to Cleopatra, as knowing that she was a woman irksome to all; and at that time he thought her particularly worthy of his hatred, if this attempt proceeded out of lust; he had also thought of preventing her intrigues, by putting her to death, if such were her endeavors. However, he refused to comply with her proposals, and called a counsel of his friends to consult with them whether he should not kill her, now he had her in his power; for that he should thereby deliver all those from a multitude of evils to whom she was already become irksome, and was expected to be still so for the time to come; and that this very thing would be much for the advantage of Antony himself, since she would certainly not be faithful to him, in case any such season or necessity should come upon him as that he should stand in need of her fidelity. But when he thought to follow this advice, his friends would not let him; and told him that, in the first place, it was not right to attempt so great a thing, and run himself thereby into the utmost danger; and they laid hard at him, and begged of him to undertake nothing rashly, for that Antony would never bear it, no, not though any one should evidently lay before his eyes that it was for his own advantage; and that the appearance of depriving him of her conversation, by this violent and treacherous method, would probably set his affections more on a flame than before. Nor did it appear that he could offer any thing of tolerable weight in his defense, this attempt being against such a woman as was of the highest dignity of any of her sex at that time in the world; and as to any advantage to be expected from such an undertaking, if any such could be supposed in this case, it would appear to deserve condemnation, on account of the insolence he must take upon him in doing it: which considerations made it very plain that in so doing he would find his government filled with mischief, both great and lasting, both to himself and his posterity, whereas it was still in his power to reject that wickedness she would persuade him to, and to come off honorably at the same time. So by thus affrighting Herod, and representing to him the hazard he must, in all probability, run by this undertaking, they restrained him from it. So he treated Cleopatra kindly, and made her presents, and conducted her on her way to Egypt.

But still the affairs of Herod's family were no better, but perpetually more troublesome. Now this accident happened, which arose from no decent occasion, but proceeded so far as to bring great difficulties upon him. There were certain eunuchs which the king had, and on account of their beauty was very fond of them; and the care of bringing him drink was intrusted to one of them; of bringing him his supper, to another; and of putting him to bed, to the third, who also managed the principal affairs of the government; and there was one told the king that these eunuchs were corrupted by Alexander the king's son with great sums of money. And when they were asked whether Alexander had had criminal conversation with them, they confessed it, but said they knew of no further mischief of his against his father; but when they were more severely tortured, and were in the utmost extremity, and the tormentors, out of compliance with Antipater, stretched the rack to the very utmost, they said that Alexander bare great ill-will and innate hatred to his father; and that he told them that Herod despaired to live much longer; and that, in order to cover his great age, he colored his hair black, and endeavored to conceal what would discover how old he was; but that if he would apply himself to him, when he should attain the kingdom, which, in spite of his father, could come to no one else, he should quickly have the first place in that kingdom under him, for that he was now ready to take the kingdom, not only as his birth-right, but by the preparations he had made for obtaining it, because a great many of the rulers, and a great many of his friends, were of his side, and those no ill men neither, ready both to do and to suffer whatsoever should come on that account.

When Herod had punished those Pharisees who had been convicted of the foregoing crimes, he gathered an assembly together of his friends, and accused Pheroras's wife; and ascribing the abuses of the virgins to the impudence of that woman, brought an accusation against her for the dishonor she had brought upon them: that she had studiously introduced a quarrel between him and his brother, and, by her ill temper, had brought them into a state of war, both by her words and actions; that the fines which he had laid had not been paid, and the offenders had escaped punishment by her means; and that nothing which had of late been done had been done without her; "for which reason Pheroras would do well, if he would of his own accord, and by his own command, and not at my entreaty, or as following my opinion, put this his wife away, as one that will still be the occasion of war between thee and me. And now, Pheroras, if thou valuest thy relation to me, put this wife of thine away; for by this means thou wilt continue to be a brother to me, and wilt abide in thy love to me." Then said Pheroras, [although he was pressed hard by the former words,] that as he would not do so unjust a thing as to renounce his brotherly relation to him, so would he not leave off his affection for his wife; that he would rather choose to die than to live, and be deprived of a wife that was so dear unto him. Hereupon Herod put off his anger against Pheroras on these accounts, although he himself thereby underwent a very uneasy punishment. However, he forbade Antipater and his mother to have any conversation with Pheroras, and bid them to take care to avoid the assemblies of the women; which they promised to do, but still got together when occasion served, and both Ptieroras and Antipater had their own merry meetings. The report went also, that Antipater had criminal conversation with Pheroras's wife, and that they were brought together by Antipater's mother.

On the next day Varus and the king sat together in judgment, and both their friends were also called in, as also the king's relations, with his sister Salome, and as many as could discover any thing, and such as had been tortured; and besides these, some slaves of Antipater's mother, who were taken up a little before Antipater's coming, and brought with them a written letter, the sum of which was this: That he should not come back, because all was come to his father's knowledge; and that Cæsar was the only refuge he had left to prevent both his and her delivery into his father's hands. Then did Antipater fall down at his father's feet, and besought him not to prejudge his cause, but that he might be first heard by his father, and that his father would keep himself unprejudiced. So Herod ordered him to be brought into the midst, and then lamented himself about his children, from whom he had suffered such great misfortunes; and because Antipater fell upon him in his old age. He also reckoned up what maintenance and what education he had given them; and what seasonable supplies of wealth he had afforded them, according to their own desires; none of which favors had hindered them from contriving against him, and from bringing his very life into danger, in order to gain his kingdom, after an impious manner, by taking away his life before the course of nature, their father's wishes, or justice required that that kingdom should come to them; and that he wondered what hopes could elevate Antipater to such a pass as to be hardy enough to attempt such things; that he had by his testament in writing declared him his successor in the government; and while he was alive, he was in no respect inferior to him, either in his illustrious dignity, or in power and authority, he having no less than fifty talents for his yearly income, and had received for his journey to Rome no fewer than thirty talents. He also objected to him the case of his brethren whom he had accused; and if they were guilty, he had imitated their example; and if not, he had brought him groundless accusations against his near relations; for that he had been acquainted with all those things by him, and by nobody else, and had done what was done by his approbation, and whom he now absolved from all that was criminal, by becoming the inheritor of the guilt of such their parricide.

About this time died Phraates, king of the Parthians, by the treachery of Phraataces his son, upon the occasion following: When Phraates had had legitimate sons of his own, he had also an Italian maid-servant, whose name was Thermusa, who had been formerly sent to him by Julius Cæsar, among other presents. He first made her his concubine; but he being a great admirer of her beauty, in process of time having a son by her, whose name was Phraataces, he made her his legitimate wife, and had a great respect for her. Now she was able to persuade him to do any thing that she said, and was earnest in procuring the government of Parthia for her son; but still she saw that her endeavors would not succeed, unless she could contrive how to remove Phraates's legitimate sons [out of the kingdom;] so she persuaded him to send those his sons as pledges of his fidelity to Rome; and they were sent to Rome accordingly, because it was not easy for him to contradict her commands. Now while Phraataces was alone brought up in order to succeed in the government, he thought it very tedious to expect that government by his father's donation [as his successor]; he therefore formed a treacherous design against his father, by his mother's assistance, with whom, as the report went, he had criminal conversation also. So he was hated for both these vices, while his subjects esteemed this [wicked] love of his mother to be no way inferior to his parricide; and he was by them, in a sedition, expelled out of the country before he grew too great, and died. But as the best sort of Parthians agreed together that it was impossible they should be governed without a king, while also it was their constant practice to choose one of the family of Arsaces, [nor did their law allow of any others; and they thought this kingdom had been sufficiently injured already by the marriage with an Italian concubine, and by her issue,] they sent ambassadors, and called Orodes [to take the crown]; for the multitude would not otherwise have borne them; and though he was accused of very great cruelty, and was of an untractable temper, and prone to wrath, yet still he was one of the family of Arsaces. However, they made a conspiracy against him, and slew him, and that, as some say, at a festival, and among their sacrifices; [for it is the universal custom there to carry their swords with them;] but, as the more general report is, they slew him when they had drawn him out a hunting. So they sent ambassadors to Rome, and desired they would send one of those that were there as pledges to be their king. Accordingly, Vonones was preferred before the rest, and sent to them [for he seemed capable of such great fortune, which two of the greatest kingdoms under the sun now offered him, his own and a foreign one]. However, the barbarians soon changed their minds, they being naturally of a mutable disposition, upon the supposal that this man was not worthy to be their governor; for they could not think of obeying the commands of one that had been a slave, [for so they called those that had been hostages,] nor could they bear the ignominy of that name; and this was the more intolerable, because then the Parthians must have such a king set over them, not by right of war, but in time of peace. So they presently invited Artabanus, king of Media, to be their king, he being also of the race of Arsaces. Artabanus complied with the offer that was made him, and came to them with an army. So Vonones met him; and at first the multitude of the Parthians stood on this side, and he put his army in array; but Artabanus was beaten, and fled to the mountains of Media. Yet did he a little after gather a great army together, and fought with Vonones, and beat him; whereupon Vonones fled away on horseback, with a few of his attendants about him, to Seleucia [upon Tigris]. So when Artabanus had slain a great number, and this after he had gotten the victory by reason of the very great dismay the barbarians were in, he retired to Ctesiphon with a great number of his people; and so he now reigned over the Parthians. But Vonones fled away to Armenia; and as soon as he came thither, he had an inclination to have the government of the country given him, and sent ambassadors to Rome [for that purpose]. But because Tiberius refused it him, and because he wanted courage, and because the Parthian king threatened him, and sent ambassadors to him to denounce war against him if he proceeded, and because he had no way to take to regain any other kingdom, [for the people of authority among the Armenians about Niphates joined themselves to Artabanus,] he delivered up himself to Silanus, the president of Syria, who, out of regard to his education at Rome, kept him in Syria, while Artabanus gave Armenia to Orodes, one of his own sons.

This was the end of Caius, after he had reigned four years, within four months. He was, even before he came to be emperor, ill-natured, and one that had arrived at the utmost pitch of wickedness; a slave to his pleasures, and a lover of calumny; greatly affected by every terrible accident, and on that account of a very murderous disposition where he durst show it. He enjoyed his exorbitant power to this only purpose, to injure those who least deserved it, with unreasonable insolence and got his wealth by murder and injustice. He labored to appear above regarding either what was divine or agreeable to the laws, but was a slave to the commendations of the populace; and whatsoever the laws determined to be shameful, and punished, that he esteemed more honorable than what was virtuous. He was unmindful of his friends, how intimate soever, and though they were persons of the highest character; and if he was once angry at any of them, he would inflict punishment upon them on the smallest occasions, and esteemed every man that endeavored to lead a virtuous life his enemy. And whatsoever he commanded, he would not admit of any contradiction to his inclinations; whence it was that he had criminal conversation with his own sister; from which occasion chiefly it was also that a bitter hatred first sprang up against him among the citizens, that sort of incest not having been known of a long time; and so this provoked men to distrust him, and to hate him that was guilty of it. And for any great or royal work that he ever did, which might be for the present and for future ages, nobody can name any such, but only the haven that he made about Rhegium and Sicily, for the reception of the ships that brought corn from Egypt; which was indeed a work without dispute very great in itself, and of very great advantage to the navigation. Yet was not this work brought to perfection by him, but was the one half of it left imperfect, by reason of his want of application to it; the cause of which was this, that he employed his studies about useless matters, and that by spending his money upon such pleasures as concerned no one's benefit but his own, he could not exert his liberality in things that were undeniably of great consequence. Otherwise he was an excellent orator, and thoroughly acquainted with the Greek tongue, as well as with his own country or Roman language. He was also able, off-hand and readily, to give answers to compositions made by others, of considerable length and accuracy. He was also more skillful in persuading others to very great things than any one else, and this from a natural affability of temper, which had been improved by much exercise and pains-taking; for as he was the grandson of the brother of Tiberius, whose successor he was, this was a strong inducement to his acquiring of learning, because Tiberius aspired after the highest pitch of that sort of reputation; and Caius aspired after the like glory for eloquence, being induced thereto by the letters of his kinsman and his emperor. He was also among the first rank of his own citizens. But the advantages he received from his learning did not countervail the mischief he brought upon himself in the exercise of his authority; so difficult it is for those to obtain the virtue that is necessary for a wise man, who have the absolute power to do what they please without control. At the first he got himself such friends as were in all respects the most worthy, and was greatly beloved by them, while he imitated their zealous application to the learning and to the glorious actions of the best men; but when he became insolent towards them, they laid aside the kindness they had for him, and began to hate him; from which hatred came that plot which they raised against him, and wherein he perished.

But as for Bernice, she lived a widow a long while after the death of Herod [king of Chalcis], who was both her husband and her uncle; but when the report went that she had criminal conversation with her brother, [Agrippa, junior,] she persuaded Poleme, who was king of Cilicia, to be circumcised, and to marry her, as supposing that by this means she should prove those calumnies upon her to be false; and Poleme was prevailed upon, and that chiefly on account of her riches. Yet did not this matrimony endure long; but Bernice left Poleme, and, as was said, with impure intentions. So he forsook at once this matrimony, and the Jewish religion; and, at the same time, Mariamne put away Archelaus, and was married to Demetrius, the principal man among the Alexandrian Jews, both for his family and his wealth; and indeed he was then their alabarch. So she named her son whom she had by him Agrippinus. But of all these particulars we shall hereafter treat more exactly.

But, upon his coming and fighting, he was beaten, and a great many of those that were with him fell. And this disgrace which Gessius [with Cestius] received, became the calamity of our whole nation; for those that were fond of the war were so far elevated with this success, that they had hopes of finally conquering the Romans. Of which war another occasion was ministered; which was this:-- Those that dwelt in the neighboring cities of Syria seized upon such Jews as dwelt among them, with their wives and children, and slew them, when they had not the least occasion of complaint against them; for they did neither attempt any innovation or revolt from the Romans, nor had they given any marks of hatred or treacherous designs towards the Syrians. But what was done by the inhabitants of Scythopolis was the most impious and most highly criminal of all; for when the Jews their enemies came upon them from without, they forced the Jews that were among them to bear arms against their own countrymen, which it is unlawful for us to do; and when, by their assistance, they had joined battle with those who attacked them, and had beaten them, after that victory they forgot the assurances they had given these their fellow citizens and confederates, and slew them all, being in number many ten thousands [13,000]. The like miseries were undergone by those Jews that were the inhabitants of Damascus. But we have given a more accurate account of these things in the books of the Jewish war. I only mention them now, because I would demonstrate to my readers, that the Jews' war with the Romans was not voluntary, but that, for the main, they were forced by necessity to enter into it.

But the storm of the whole family was removed to Alexander, and all of it rested upon his head. There were three eunuchs who were in the highest esteem with the king, as was plain by the offices they were in about him; for one of them was appointed to be his butler, another of them got his supper ready for him, and the third put him into bed, and lay down by him. Now Alexander had prevailed with these men, by large gifts, to let him use them after an obscene manner; which, when it was told to the king, they were tortured, and found guilty, and presently confessed the criminal conversation he had with them. They also discovered the promises by which they were induced so to do, and how they were deluded by Alexander, who had told them that they ought not to fix their hopes upon Herod, an old man, and one so shameless as to color his hair, unless they thought that would make him young again; but that they ought to fix their attention to him who was to be his successor in the kingdom, whether he would or not; and who in no long time would avenge himself on his enemies, and make his friends happy and blessed, and themselves in the first place; that the men of power did already pay respects to Alexander privately, and that the captains of the soldiery, and the officers, did secretly come to him.

As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in appearance is one and the same, is found in fact to be different in different persons, according to the principles and motives which lead to it; so in the same way with those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or temples, or images. The Scythians, the nomadic Libyans, the godless Seres, and the Persians, agree in this with the Christians and Jews, but they are actuated by very different principles. For none of these former abhor altars and images on the ground that they are afraid of degrading the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship of material things wrought by the hands of men. Neither do they object to them from a belief that the demons choose certain forms and places, whether because they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because for some other possible reason they have selected these haunts, where they may pursue their criminal pleasures, in partaking of the smoke of sacrificial victims. But Christians and Jews have regard to this command, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;” and this other, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;” and again, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.

CONFESSION. O LORD of Heaven and of Earth, before thee do I confess my sins, and lament them, cast down and humbled in thy presence. For I have sinned before thee by pride, avarice, and boundless desire of honours and riches; by idleness, gluttony, greed, debauchery, and drunkenness; because I have offended thee by all kinds of sins of the flesh, adulteries, and pollutions, which I have committed myself, and consented that others should commit; by sacrilege, thefts, rapine, violation, and homicide; by the evil use I have made of my possessions, by my prodigality, by the sins which I have committed against Hope and Charity, by my evil advice, flatteries, bribes, and the ill distribution which I have made of the goods of which I have been possessed; by repulsing and maltreating the poor, in the distribution which I have made of the goods committed to my charge, by afflicting those over whom I have been set in authority, by not visiting the prisoners, by depriving the dead of burial, by not receiving the poor, by neither feeding the hungry nor giving drink to the thirsty, by never keeping the Sabbath and the other feasts, by not living chastely and piously on those days, by the easy consent which I have given to those who incited me to evil deeds, by injuring instead of aiding those who demanded help from me, by refusing to give ear unto the cry of the poor, by not respecting the aged, by not keeping my word, by disobedience to my parents, by ingratitude towards those from whom I have received kindness, by indulgence in sensual pleasures, by irreverent behaviour in the Temple of God, by unseemly gestures thereat, by entering therein without reverence, by vain and unprofitable discourse when there, by despising the sacred vessels of the temple, by turning the holy Ceremonies into ridicule, by touching and eating the sacred bread with impure lips and with profane hands, and by the neglect of my prayers and adorations. I detest also the crimes which I have committed by evil thoughts, vain and impure meditations, false suspicions, and rash judgments; by the evil consent which I have readily given unto the advice of the wicked, by lust of impure and sensual pleasures; by my idle words, my lies, and my deceit; by my false vows in various ways; and by my continual slander and calumny. I detest also the crimes which I have committed within; the treachery and discord which I have incited; my curiosity, greed, false speaking, violence, malediction, murmurs, blasphemies, vain words, insults, dissimulations; my sins against God by the transgression of the ten commandments, by neglect of my duties and obligations, and by want of love towards God and towards my neighbour. Furthermore I hate the sins which I have committed in all my senses, by sight, by hearing, by taste, by smell, and by touch, in every way that human weakness can offend the creator; by my carnal thoughts, deeds, and meditations. In which I humbly confess that I have sinned, and recognise myself as being in the sight of God the most criminal of all men. I accuse myself before thee, O God, and I adore thee with all humility. O ye, holy angels, and ye, children of God, in your presence I publish my sins, so that mine enemy may have no advantage over me, and may not be able to reproach me at the last day; that he may not be able to say that I have concealed my sins, and that I be not then accused in the presence of the Lord; but, on the contrary, that on my account there may be joy in Heaven, as over the just who have confessed their sins in thy presence. O most mighty and all powerful Father, grant through thine unbounded mercy that I may both see and know all the spirits which I invoke, so that by their means I may see my will and desire accomplished, by the sovereign grandeur, and by thine ineffable and eternal glory, thou who art and who wilt be for ever the pure and ineffable father of all. The confession having been finished with great humility, and with the inward feeling of the heart, the master will recite the following prayer:— PRAYER. O Lord all powerful, eternal God and father of all creatures, shed upon me the divine influence of thy mercy, for I am thy creature. I beseech thee to defend me from mine enemies, and to confirm in me true and steadfast faith. O Lord, I commit my body and my soul unto thee, seeing I put my trust in none beside thee; it is on thee alone that I rely; O Lord my God aid me; O Lord hear me in the day and hour wherein I shall invoke thee. I pray thee by thy mercy not to put me in oblivion, nor to remove me from thee. O Lord be thou my succor, thou who art the God of my salvation. O Lord make me a new heart according unto thy loving kindness. These, O Lord, are the gifts which I await from thee, O my God and my master, thou who livest and reignest unto the Ages of the Ages. Amen. O Lord God the all powerful one, who hast formed unto thyself great and ineffable wisdom, and co-eternal with thyself before the countless ages; thou who in the birth of time hast created the Heavens, and the Earth, the sea, and things that they contain; thou who hast vivified all things by the breath of thy mouth, I praise thee, I bless thee, I adore thee, and I glorify thee. Be thou propitious unto me who am but a miserable sinner, and despise me not; save me and succor me, even me the work of thine hands. I conjure and entreat thee by thy Holy name to banish from my spirit the darkness of Ignorance, and to enlighten me with the Fire of thy Wisdom; take away from me all evil desires, and let not my speech be as that of the foolish. O thou, God the Living One, whose Glory, Honour, and Kingdom shall extend unto the Ages of the Ages. Amen.

The place of stoning was twice a man’s height. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, [so that] he was overturned on his heart. He was then turned on his back. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled [his duty]; but if not, the second witness took a stone and threw it on his chest. If he died thereby, he had done [his duty]; but if not, he [the criminal] was stoned by all Israel, for it is says: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people” (Deut. 17:7). All who are stoned are [afterwards] hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: “Only the blasphemer and the idolater are hanged.” A man is hanged with his face towards the spectators, but a woman with her face towards the gallows, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: a man is hanged, but not a woman. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: “But did not Shimon ben Shetah hang women at ashkelon?” They said: “[On that occasion] he hanged eighty women, even though two must not be tried on the same day. How is he hanged? The post is sunk into the ground with a [cross-] piece branching off [at the top] and he brings his hands together one over the other and hangs him up [thereby]. R. Jose said: the post is leaned against the wall, and he hangs him up the way butchers do. He is immediately let down. If he is left [hanging] over night, a negative command is thereby transgressed, for it says, “You shall not let his corpse remain all night upon the tree, but you must bury him the same day because a hanged body is a curse against god” (Deut. 21:23). As if to say why was he hanged? because he cursed the name [of god]; and so the name of Heaven [God] is profaned.

R. Meir said: “When man suffers, what expression does the shechinah (God’s presence) use? “My head is too light (a euphemism for heavy) for me, my arm is too light (a euphemism for heavy) for me.” If god is so grieved over the blood of the wicked that is shed, how much more so over the blood of the righteous! And not only of this one [a criminal did the sages not to leave him overnight] but whosoever lets his dead lie over night transgresses a negative commandment. If he kept him over night for the sake of his honor, to procure for him a coffin or a shroud, he does not transgress. And they did not bury him [the executed person] in his ancestral tomb, but two burial places were prepared by the court, one for those who were decapitated or strangled, and the other for those who were stoned or burned.

It is stated: A Cohen may defile himself by leaving the Land for civil and criminal suits, for the consecration of the New Moon and intercalation of a year, to save a field from a Gentile, and he even may leave and lodge a complaint about it, to study Torah and to marry a wife. Rebbi Judah says, if he has a place to study, he should not defile himself. Rebbi Yose says, even if he has a place to study, he may defile himself, since a man may not have the luck to learn from every teacher. They said about Joseph the Cohen that he defiled himself and followed his teacher to Sidon. In truth, they said a priest should not go abroad unless one promised him a wife.

Ḥuna said, he who prays behind the synagogue is called criminal as it is said (Ps. 12:9) “Criminals walk around.” Rav Ḥuna said, one who does not enter a synagogue in this world will not enter the synagogue in the future world. What is the reason? (Ps. 12:9) “Criminals walk around.”

Merit has capital and yield; sin has capital but no yield. Merit has capital and has yield, as it is said (Is. 3:10): “Tell the just that it is very well, that they will eat the fruit of their actions.” Sin has capital but no yield, as it is said (Is. 3:11): “Woe to the bad criminal, the retribution for his actions will be come upon him.” How can I confirm (Prov. 1:31): “They will eat from the fruits of their way?” Every sin that produces fruit has yield, that which does not produce fruit has no yield.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

MISHNAH: One who throws and remembers before it leaves his hand, if another person caught it, or a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable. If one threw with the intention of causing an injury whether on a human or an animal and he remembered before it caused an injury, he is not liable. This is the principle: All who are liable for a purification sacrifice are liable only if beginning and end were in error. If the beginning was unintentional but the end criminal or the beginning criminal and the end unintentional they are not liable unless beginning and end be unintentional.

MISHNAH: One who throws and remembers before it leaves his hand, if another person caught it, or a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable. If one threw with the intention of causing an injury whether on a human or an animal and he remembered before it caused an injury, he is not liable. This is the principle: All who are liable for a purification sacrifice are liable only if beginning and end were in error. If the beginning was unintentional but the end criminal or the beginning criminal and the end unintentional they are not liable unless beginning and end be unintentional.

Rav and the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya both say, ninety-nine die because of the eye and one by the hand of Heaven. Rebbi Ḥanina and Samuel both say, ninety-nine die because of cold and one by the hand of Heaven. Rav follows his opinion and Rebbi Ḥanina follows his opinion. Since Rav was living there, where the evil eye is prevalent, he did say that ninety-nine die because of the eye and one by the hand of Heaven. Since Rebbi Ḥanina was living in Sepphoris, where it is cold, he did say that ninety-nine die because of cold and one by the hand of Heaven. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Ninety-nine die because of hot wind and one by the hand of Heaven. But the rabbis say, ninety-nine die because of criminal negligence and one by the hand of Heaven.

MISHNAH: If a crawling animal was found in the Temple, a Cohen carries it outside in his belt in order not to continue the impurity, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Jehudah says, with wooden tongs in order not to increase impurity. From where does one remove it? From the Temple Hall, and the vestibule, and from between the vestibule and the altar, the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Nannas. Rebbi Aqiba says, from a place where one is liable for extirpation in case of criminal intent and a purification offering if in error one removes it; at all other places one places a wine cooler over it. Rebbi Simeon said, at a place where the Sages permitted it to you they gave it from your own since they only permitted because of rabbinic Sabbath restrictions.

HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Meïr says, a single tribe does not drag all tribes, but Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. And Rebbi Jehudah follows Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, one tribe drags all tribes, so Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? Since the entire people acted in error. How does Rebbi Simeon uphold Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, the entire community of the Children of Israel will be forgiven? Except women and children. How does Rebbi Jehudah uphold Rebbi Simeon’s reason, since the entire people acted in error? Except if the beginning was criminal and the conclusion in error. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as it was stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Pesaḥ] and impure the second, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in purity or all celebrate in impurity. Who is “they told him”? Rebbi Meïr. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Meïr.

MISHNAH: He comes to his bull; his bull was standing between the Temple Hall and the altar, its head to the South and its face to the West, and the Cohen standing in the East with his face to the West. He leans his hands on it and confesses, and thus he was saying: “Please Hashem, I acted criminally, I offended, I sinned before You, I and my house. Please Hashem, please atone the criminal acts, and the offenses, and the sins, by which I offended, acted criminally, and sinned before You, I and my house, as is written in the Torah of Your servant Moses, because on that day He will atone for you, etc.” They answer him: “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever” He comes to the Eastern part of the courtyard, North of the altar; the executive officer to his right and the head of the serving family to his left. There were two he-goats, and an um was there with two lots in it. They were of boxwood but Ben Gamia made them from gold; he was remembered for praise.

[It was stated: “How does he confess? “I acted criminally, I rebelled, I sinned;’ and it says, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, criminal acts are intentional crimes, offenses are rebellions, sins are inadvertent actions. After he confesses about criminal acts he turns around and confesses about inadvertent acts? But he confesses as follows: Please Hashem, I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You, I and my house (etc..) [and the sons of Aaron. As is written in the Torah of Moses as follows, for on that day he shall, etc. They, answer him: “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”.] And so we find that confessors do confess. David said, we and our fathers sinned, we acted criminally and we led to bad behavior. His son Solomon said, [we sinned,] we acted criminally, behaved badly. Daniel said, we sinned, we actedcriminally, we led to bad behavior, and we rebelled. Also he was confessing thus: I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You. What means this which Moses said, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc.? But since he confesses to criminal rebellious acts, it is as if they were inadvertent sins before Him.”

[It was stated: “How does he confess? “I acted criminally, I rebelled, I sinned;’ and it says, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, criminal acts are intentional crimes, offenses are rebellions, sins are inadvertent actions. After he confesses about criminal acts he turns around and confesses about inadvertent acts? But he confesses as follows: Please Hashem, I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You, I and my house (etc..) [and the sons of Aaron. As is written in the Torah of Moses as follows, for on that day he shall, etc. They, answer him: “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”.] And so we find that confessors do confess. David said, we and our fathers sinned, we acted criminally and we led to bad behavior. His son Solomon said, [we sinned,] we acted criminally, behaved badly. Daniel said, we sinned, we actedcriminally, we led to bad behavior, and we rebelled. Also he was confessing thus: I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You. What means this which Moses said, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc.? But since he confesses to criminal rebellious acts, it is as if they were inadvertent sins before Him.”

[It was stated: “How does he confess? “I acted criminally, I rebelled, I sinned;’ and it says, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, criminal acts are intentional crimes, offenses are rebellions, sins are inadvertent actions. After he confesses about criminal acts he turns around and confesses about inadvertent acts? But he confesses as follows: Please Hashem, I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You, I and my house (etc..) [and the sons of Aaron. As is written in the Torah of Moses as follows, for on that day he shall, etc. They, answer him: “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”.] And so we find that confessors do confess. David said, we and our fathers sinned, we acted criminally and we led to bad behavior. His son Solomon said, [we sinned,] we acted criminally, behaved badly. Daniel said, we sinned, we actedcriminally, we led to bad behavior, and we rebelled. Also he was confessing thus: I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You. What means this which Moses said, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc.? But since he confesses to criminal rebellious acts, it is as if they were inadvertent sins before Him.”

MISHNAH: He tied a shiny strip on the head of the he-goat to be sent away and put it next to its departure gate, and on the one to be slaughtered around the place of its slaughter. He came to his bull a second time, leaned both his hands on it and confessed, and thus he was saying: “Please Hashem, I acted criminally, I offended, I sinned before You, I and my house, and the Sons of Aaron, your holy people. Please Hashem, please atone the criminal acts,” etc.

MISHNAH: He came to the he-goat to be sent away and leaned on it with both his hands and confessed. And thus he was saying: “Please Hashem, they acted criminally, offended, sinned before You, Your people, the House of Israel. Please Hashem, please atone the criminal acts,” etc.

“All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime he did not fall down half the mountain before he dissolved into limbs; after Simeon the Just’s death he fled to the desert and was eaten by the Saracens. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the lot for Hashem came up in his right hand; after Simeon the Just’s death sometimes it came up to the right, sometimes to the left. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the Easternmost light was burning; after Simeon the Just’s death sometimes it was extinguished, sometimes burning. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the shiny strip turned white; after Simeon the Just’s death sometimes it turned white, sometimes it turned red. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the fire on the altar steadily increased; after they had put on two logs in the morning they did not add anything during the day. After Simeon the Just’s death the fire weakened; the had to add wood all day long. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime a blessing was in the Two Breads and the shew-bread; the part of each one came to an olive sized bite; some of them ate and were full, some of them ate and left over. After Simeon the Just’s death the blessing was taken from the Two Breads and the shew-bread; the part of each one came only to a pea-sized bit. The decent ones refrained from taking; the gluttons stretched out their hands. It happened that a Cohen from Sepphoris took his and another’s part; he was called “pea-sized one” to this day. This is what David said, My God, let me escape from the hand of the evildoer, from the palm of the criminal and oppressor.”

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

“One does not judge.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore one does not judge <criminal matters> on Sabbath eve or holiday eve”? Hence, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for words of the Torah.

“One does not judge.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore one does not judge <criminal matters> on Sabbath eve or holiday eve”? Hence, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for words of the Torah.

Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai stated: Aqiba my teacher used to preach, there appeared a star out of Jacob there appeared Koziba out of Jacob. When Rebbi Aqiba saw Bar Koziba he said, this is King Messias. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Torta said to him, Aqiba! Grass will grow from your jaws and still David’s son (still has to) [will not have] come. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the voice of Emperor Hadrian killing eighty thousand myriads at Bettar. Rebbi Joḥanan said, eighty [thousand] couples of horn-blowers were encircling Bettar, each of which was commanding several army units. There was Ben Koziba who had 200’000 with him missing a finger. The Sages sent, how long will you turn Israel into defective persons? He told them, how would it be possible to test them? They said to him, anyone who riding on his horse cannot uproot a cedar of Lebanon should not be enrolled in your army. He had 200’000 of either kind. When he went into battle he said, Master of the World: Do not support and do not hinder, did not you, God, neglect us, and do not go out with our armies. Three and a half years did Hadrian encircle Bettar. Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin was sitting in sackcloth and ashes, praying every day and saying, Master of the World, do not sit in judgment today, do not sit in judgment today. Hadrian wanted to go away. A Samaritan said to him, do not go away, for I am seeing what to do that the city will submit to you. He went to the city gate, entered, and found Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin standing in prayer. He showed himself as if he would whisper into his ear. The people of the city saw him and brought him to Ben Koziba. They said to him, we saw this old man turning to your uncle. He asked him, what did you say to him and what did he say to you? He answered, if I shall tell you, the king will kill me; but if I do not tell you, you will kill me. It is better that the king should kill me but not you. He told him, he said to me, I will make the town submit to the king. He came to Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin. He asked him, what did this Samaritan say to you. He answered, nothing. What did you say to him? He answered, nothing. He kicked him and killed him. Immediately there came an unembodied voice and said, woe, criminal shepherds, who abandon the flock, a sword on his arm and on his right eye. His arm shall dry up and his right eye darken. You killed Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin, the arm of Israel, and their right eye. Therefore this man’s arm shall dry up and his right eye darken. Immediately Bettar was taken and Ben Koziba killed. They came carrying his head to Hadrain. He asked them, who killed him? A Samaritan said to him, I killed him. He said to him, show me his body. He showed him his body; he found a poisonous snake wrapped around him. He said, if God had not killed him, who could kill him? He recited over him, if not that their Rock had sold them, and the Eternal handed them over. They killed them continuously until the horse was immersed in blood up to his nose. The blood was moving rocks of 40 seah loads, until the blood colored the sea for four mil. If you would say that it was close to the sea, in fact it is 40 mil distant from the sea. They said, 300 children’s brains were found on one stone, and they found three boxes of tefillin capsules of nine seah each, but some say nine of three each. It was stated, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, 500 schools were in Bettar, the smallest one for not less than 500 children. They were saying, if the haters come against us we shall go out against them with these stylos and blind them. When the sins caused, they were binding each single one into his book and burning him; and of them only I remained. He recited referring to himself, my eye hurts my soul more than all daughters of my city. The evil Hadrian had a large vineyard, eighteen mil by eighteen mil, as from Tiberias to Sepphoris. He fenced it in with the slain of Bettar standing up with outstretched arms, and did not decide that they should be buried, until another king arose who decided that they should be buried.

Does one rend his garment nowadays? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When blasphemers proliferated, they stopped rending. Does one rend for substitute names today? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was travelling on the highway. He met a Samaritan who was repeatedly blaspheming, and he was rending. He dismounted from the donkey and gave him a blow on his heart saying to him: Criminal! Does your mother have garments to supply me with? This implies that one rends for substitute names and rends his garments at the present time.

The argument of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted. There, he says “it is not so, but a congenital castrate performs ḥalîṣah and one performs ḥalîṣah for his wife,” and you say so? Rebbi Iniah said, Rebbi Eliezer referred only to criminal responsibility.

Rav said, if testimony was contradicted in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradicted in itself, the testimony is void in the opinion of everybody. If testimony was contradicted in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. These say, he counted into his bosom, the others say he counted into his money-belt; everybody agrees that is contradicting testimony after the main testimony, and the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Judah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? Did they not consider the co-wife’s words as nonexistent for her companion? (Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he heard it from me and formulated it.) A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and in cross examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases: “Justice, justice you shall pursue”.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out. But when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and it swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that he was in secret with other women. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her. [ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly! But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he divorced her, she would be permitted to him. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he divorced her, would she be permitted to him? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted.

In earlier times they required payment only from a person alone. But now they require payment from him and his family. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: In earlier times, for every trouble that came over the community they have a joyous occasion to make up for it. But after the Synhedrion was abolished, song disappeared from wedding feasts. After both disappeared, “our heart’s joy stopped, our dance turned into mourning.” But what was the high court good for? But because it was said “if the people of the Land consistently turn away their eyes from that man when he is giving of his seed to the Moloch, not to kill him,” in any death they would choose. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To one who was a criminal in a town. They delivered him to the one wielding reeds, who jailed him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding reeds. They delivered him to the one wielding sticks who hit him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding sticks. They delivered him to the wielder of leather straps who whipped him, but he turned out to be stronger than the wielder of leather straps. They delivered him to the ruler who hung him in the kiln. So the later troubles cause the earlier ones to be forgotten.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore, one does not judge criminal matters on Friday or any day before a holiday”? Therefore, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for Torah study.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore, one does not judge criminal matters on Friday or any day before a holiday”? Therefore, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for Torah study.

Should one follow the majority, and most women are married as virgins. Say then that she was married as a virgin! This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. There, we have stated: “If an ox gored a cow and one finds her fetus beside her.” Do most cows have miscarriages? Say therefore that the goring induced the miscarriage. Rebbi Abbahu said, this implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Abun said, in one case they applied a majority argument, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that the one in heat bit it.

Should one follow the majority, and most women are married as virgins. Say then that she was married as a virgin! This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. There, we have stated: “If an ox gored a cow and one finds her fetus beside her.” Do most cows have miscarriages? Say therefore that the goring induced the miscarriage. Rebbi Abbahu said, this implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Abun said, in one case they applied a majority argument, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that the one in heat bit it.

MISHNAH: A woman who was jailed by Gentiles, if because of money matters, she is permitted to her husband; if because of criminal matters, she is prohibited to her husband. If a city was conquered after a siege, all wives of priests in it are disqualified; but if they have witnesses, even a slave, even a slave girl, those are trustworthy; but nobody is trustworthy about himself. Rebbi Zachariah, the son of the butcher, said, by the Temple! Her hand did not leave my hand from the moment the Gentiles entered Jerusalem until they left! They said to him, nobody testifies on his own behalf.

“If because of criminal matters she is prohibited.” Rebbi Yudan the son of Rav Ḥama from Kefar Teḥumim in the name of Ḥizqiah: Only if she was sentenced to death. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if she was not sentenced to death. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A robber’s wife is like a robber’.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Hoshaia, when he received witnesses at Kallirhoë, used to say to them: You should know the importance of the testimony that comes from your mouth, how much rent money depends on your mouths. Rebbi Abuna said, if it is so, it is even a matter of criminal law. If somebody sleeps with a girl three years and one day old, he is stoned. The Court decided to lengthen, if he sleeps with her he is not stoned. Rebbi Abun said: “I am calling to Almighty God, to the God who decides with me.” If a girl is three years and one day old, if the Court decided to lengthen, her hymen repairs itself, otherwise it does not repair itself.

HALAKHAH: “If two groups of witnesses,” etc. Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, and that he has to be a nazir for two periods. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five. Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent in what he said, since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that refer [to] the facts, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Eliezer concedes in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to that of her companion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and in cross examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: “Justice, justice you shall pursue”.

It is stated: A Cohen may defile himself by leaving the Land for civil and criminal suits, for the consecration of the New Moon and intercalation of a year, to redeem a field from a Gentile, to study Torah, and to marry a wife. Rebbi Judah says, if he has a place to study, he should not defile himself. Rebbi Yose says, even if he has a place to study, he may defile himself, since a man may not have the luck to learn from every teacher. They said about Joseph the Cohen that he followed his teacher and defiled himself following his teacher to Sidon. In truth, they said a priest should not go abroad unless one promised him a wife.

HALAKHAH: “Any document signed by a Samaritan is invalid,” etc. They are suspected about money; about money they were disqualified.They are not suspected about incest and adultery. And testimony in capital criminal cases has the same status as testimony about incest and adultery. Then even if both of them are Samaritans? There is a difference, for they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce. Then even one Samaritan witness should be disqualified! Rebbi Abin said, explain it if a Jew signed last. Rebbi Yose said, that is according to the opinion that the witnesses may sign separately, not in the presence of each other. But according to him who says that witnesses may sign only in the presence of each other, it is valid even if the Samaritan signed last.

HALAKHAH: “A bull gored a cow”, etc. Do all cows have miscarriages? Should we follow the majority of cases? This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Yose said, in another case they applied a majority argument in criminal cases and in money matters, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: “If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that certainly the one in heat killed it.”

HALAKHAH: “A bull gored a cow”, etc. Do all cows have miscarriages? Should we follow the majority of cases? This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Yose said, in another case they applied a majority argument in criminal cases and in money matters, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: “If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that certainly the one in heat killed it.”

HALAKHAH: “Money matters are judged by three [judges],” etc. From where comes this? These shall be the laws of procedure to you, I would say that both civil cases and criminal cases are subject to the rules of verification and examination.

It was stated: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, criminal jurisdiction was removed from Israel, and in the days of Simeon ben (Šetaḥ) civil jurisdiction was removed. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, praised be the Merciful, for I am not intelligent enough to judge.

Rebbi Hoshaia, when he received witnesses at Kallirhoë, used to say to them: you should know the importance of the testimony that comes from your mouths; how much rent money depends on your mouths. Rebbi Abuna said, if it is so, it is even a matter of criminal law. If somebody sleeps with a girl three years and one day old, he is stoned. The court decides to lengthen, if he sleeps with her he is not stoned. Rebbi Abun said, I am calling to Almighty God, to the God Who decides with me. If a girl is three years and one day old, if the court decides to lengthen her hymen does (not) repair itself, otherwise it does [not] repair itself.

Rebbi Zeˋira said, it says here “criminal” and it says there “criminal”, the prophet said it criminally. Since about “criminal” used there, the verse speaks about a false prophet, also about “criminal” used here, the verse speaks about a false prophet. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, it says here “spoke” and it says there, that the prophet would speak in the Eternal’s name. Since about “spoke” used there, the verse speaks about a false prophet, also about “spoke” used here, the verse speaks about a false prophet.

Rebbi Zeˋira said, it says here “criminal” and it says there “criminal”, the prophet said it criminally. Since about “criminal” used there, the verse speaks about a false prophet, also about “criminal” used here, the verse speaks about a false prophet. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, it says here “spoke” and it says there, that the prophet would speak in the Eternal’s name. Since about “spoke” used there, the verse speaks about a false prophet, also about “spoke” used here, the verse speaks about a false prophet.

Rebbi Zeˋira said, it says here “criminal” and it says there “criminal”, the prophet said it criminally. Since about “criminal” used there, the verse speaks about a false prophet, also about “criminal” used here, the verse speaks about a false prophet. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, it says here “spoke” and it says there, that the prophet would speak in the Eternal’s name. Since about “spoke” used there, the verse speaks about a false prophet, also about “spoke” used here, the verse speaks about a false prophet.

Rebbi Zeˋira said, it says here “criminal” and it says there “criminal”, the prophet said it criminally. Since about “criminal” used there, the verse speaks about a false prophet, also about “criminal” used here, the verse speaks about a false prophet. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, it says here “spoke” and it says there, that the prophet would speak in the Eternal’s name. Since about “spoke” used there, the verse speaks about a false prophet, also about “spoke” used here, the verse speaks about a false prophet.

MISHNAH: The High Synhedrion had 71 members and a lower one 23 members. From where that the High Court has 71 members? For it is said: Assemble for me 70 men of the Elders of Israel, and Moses was presiding, that makes 71. Rebbi Jehudah says, 70. From where that a lower court has 23 members? For it is said, the congregation shall judge, the congregation shall save. One congregation judges, one congregation saves, this makes twenty. And from where that a congregation consists of ten persons? As it is said, how long this evil congregation, without Joshua and Caleb. From where that one adds another three? From the interpretation of what is said, do not follow the majority to be unfavorable, I understand that He said, follow them to be favorable. Then why was it said, to bend after the majority? Your bending to be favorable is not equal to your bending to be unfavorable. Your bending to be favorable shall be by one [vote] (witness), your bending to be unfavorable shall be by two. Since no court may be even-numbered, one adds another one to obtain 23. How many people shall live in a town that it may have a criminal court? 120. Rebbi Nehemiah said 230, that they might be commanders over tens.

This Nabal was a descendant of Kelubai. Nabal said, nobody in Israel comes from a better family than I. That is what is written: A man from Maˋon had his business in Karmel; the man was exceedingly rich, a Kalebite, a descendant of Kelubai. David heard in the prairie that Nabal was shearing. Tell him, to life! For long life. Peace be with you, etc. Rebbi Justus from Sunem said, they formed a camp. Nabal answered David’s servants, etc. From where that in criminal trials the voting starts from the side? Samuel the Elder stated before Rebbi Aḥa: David told his men, etc. He flew at them. What means he flew at them? He made them fly with words. Now know this and consider what to do. She fell in with them, she bared her thigh and they walked by its light. She fell in with them, they all were recognizable. [David] said, was it in vain that I watched, etc.? Pissing on a wall; why does he refer to the dog pissing on a wall? Even with the dog I shall not have mercy. Abigail saw David, etc. She told him, my lord David, what did I do, what did my children do, what did my animals do? He answered her, because he insulted the kingdom of David. She asked him, are you a king? He told her, did not Samuel anoint me as king? She answered him, our Lord’s Saul‘s coin is still circulating. And I am your servant; this proves that he asked her for sex. Immediately, she brought out her stains and showed him. He said, does one investigate stains in the night? She retorted, may your ears hear what your lips say! Stains one does not investigate in the night, does one judge capital cases in the night? He answered, his sentence was already passed in daytime. She retorted, may this not be פוּקָה for you.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

MISHNAH: Both civil suits and criminal suits require cross-examination and investigation, as it is said: One set of rules shall be for you. What is the difference between civil suits and criminal suits? Civil suits are tried before three judges, criminal suits before 23. In civil suits one starts with arguments either for acquittal or conviction; in criminal courts one starts with arguments for acquittal but not for conviction.

MISHNAH: Both civil suits and criminal suits require cross-examination and investigation, as it is said: One set of rules shall be for you. What is the difference between civil suits and criminal suits? Civil suits are tried before three judges, criminal suits before 23. In civil suits one starts with arguments either for acquittal or conviction; in criminal courts one starts with arguments for acquittal but not for conviction.

MISHNAH: Both civil suits and criminal suits require cross-examination and investigation, as it is said: One set of rules shall be for you. What is the difference between civil suits and criminal suits? Civil suits are tried before three judges, criminal suits before 23. In civil suits one starts with arguments either for acquittal or conviction; in criminal courts one starts with arguments for acquittal but not for conviction.

MISHNAH: Both civil suits and criminal suits require cross-examination and investigation, as it is said: One set of rules shall be for you. What is the difference between civil suits and criminal suits? Civil suits are tried before three judges, criminal suits before 23. In civil suits one starts with arguments either for acquittal or conviction; in criminal courts one starts with arguments for acquittal but not for conviction.

MISHNAH: Civil suits are decided by one witness whether for credit or debit; criminal suits are decided by one witness for acquittal and two for conviction.

MISHNAH: Civil suits can be retried both for credit and for debit. Criminal suits can be retried for acquittal but not for conviction.

MISHNAH: In civil suits, anybody may argue for credit or debit. In criminal suits, anybody may argue for acquittal but not everybody may argue for conviction. In civil suits, one who argued for credit may argue for debit and one who argued for debit may argue for credit; but in criminal suits one who argued for conviction may argue for acquittal but one who argued for acquittal is barred from arguing for conviction.

MISHNAH: In civil suits, anybody may argue for credit or debit. In criminal suits, anybody may argue for acquittal but not everybody may argue for conviction. In civil suits, one who argued for credit may argue for debit and one who argued for debit may argue for credit; but in criminal suits one who argued for conviction may argue for acquittal but one who argued for acquittal is barred from arguing for conviction.

MISHNAH: Civil suits are tried during the day and may be decided in the night but criminal suits are tried during the day and decided during daytime.

MISHNAH: Civil suits are decided on the same day, whether for credit or debit. But criminal suits are decided the same day for acquittal, the next day for conviction. Therefore one does not judge on Sabbath eve or holiday eve.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore one does not judge [criminal matters] on Sabbath eve or holiday eve”? Hence, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for action.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore one does not judge [criminal matters] on Sabbath eve or holiday eve”? Hence, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for action.

MISHNAH: In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity, one starts with the greatest. In criminal cases, one starts from the side. Everybody is qualified to judge money matters but not everybody is qualified to judge criminal matters, but only Cohanim, Levites and Israel whose daughters may marry into the priesthood.

MISHNAH: In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity, one starts with the greatest. In criminal cases, one starts from the side. Everybody is qualified to judge money matters but not everybody is qualified to judge criminal matters, but only Cohanim, Levites and Israel whose daughters may marry into the priesthood.