disqualify

MISHNAH: If somebody performed preliminary marriage with a woman on condition that she had no obligation of vows on her and it turns out that she had vows to fulfill, she is not preliminarily married. If he married her definitively without inquiry and she had vows to fulfill, she should leave without ketubah. For all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman.

“And all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman. They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” Rebbi Ḥamai bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They taught this about the skin of the face. But did we not state: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects.” Is this not of the visible defects? Explain it if she hid it under her headgear. It was stated: “A mole with hairs is a defect, whether it be large or small, whether it be on the body or on the face. Without a hair it is a defect on the face but not on the body. When has this been said? If it is small. But if it is large, it is a defect whether it be on the body or on the face. How big is large? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, up to an Italic as.” Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina said, for example such a Gordianic denar: its measure is half a ubiquitous gold piece. Rebbi Radifa, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Jeremiah asked: A bald woman with a row of hair going from one ear to the other? They wanted to understand it from the following: “They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” They did not mention baldness. They wanted to conclude that it is not a defect. There came Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Rebbi Nasa said, it is a defect. It is listed only if it is ugly for both sexes. But something which is beautiful in one sex but ugly in the other, like a bald pate, even though it is a defect it was not listed. You should know that this is so because a beard is beautiful for a man and a defect for a woman, and we did not state: In addition, for a woman a beard. There are breasts which are beautiful for a woman and a defect for men, and we did not state: In addition, for a man women’s breasts.

“And all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman. They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” Rebbi Ḥamai bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They taught this about the skin of the face. But did we not state: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects.” Is this not of the visible defects? Explain it if she hid it under her headgear. It was stated: “A mole with hairs is a defect, whether it be large or small, whether it be on the body or on the face. Without a hair it is a defect on the face but not on the body. When has this been said? If it is small. But if it is large, it is a defect whether it be on the body or on the face. How big is large? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, up to an Italic as.” Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina said, for example such a Gordianic denar: its measure is half a ubiquitous gold piece. Rebbi Radifa, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Jeremiah asked: A bald woman with a row of hair going from one ear to the other? They wanted to understand it from the following: “They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” They did not mention baldness. They wanted to conclude that it is not a defect. There came Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Rebbi Nasa said, it is a defect. It is listed only if it is ugly for both sexes. But something which is beautiful in one sex but ugly in the other, like a bald pate, even though it is a defect it was not listed. You should know that this is so because a beard is beautiful for a man and a defect for a woman, and we did not state: In addition, for a woman a beard. There are breasts which are beautiful for a woman and a defect for men, and we did not state: In addition, for a man women’s breasts.

One understands “the daughter of an Israel to a bastard or a Gibeonite,” for it is written: “A bastard shall not come into the Eternal’s congregation.” Why does the verse say: “of his shall not come”? To disqualify. Rebbi Abbu said, what means ממזר? “A strange defect.” This disagrees with what Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, “God installs singles as heads of families,” even if there is a male bastard at one end of the world and a female bastard at the other, the Holy One, praise to Him, brings them and copulates them with one another. Rav Huna said, a bastard does not live more than thirty days. In the days of Rebbi Berekhiah, a Babylonian immigrated here; he was informed that this was a bastard. He said to him, support me. He told him, tomorrow you will stand up in the community and I shall look for an allowance for you. He came and sat during the sermon. When he finished the sermon, he said, our brothers, support this man for he is a bastard. After the congegration had left, he said to him, rabbi, I requested material support from you but you destroyed this man’s life. He answered, by your life, life I gave you for Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna, said in the name of Rav: A bastard lives only thirty days. When? If he is not publicly known. But when he is publicly known, he survives.

MISHNAH: Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives or disqualified. But if they are unexceptionable or qualified by the court he cannot disqualify them.

Can he forever disqualify and have the other appoint [a replacement]? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they taught this about subsidiaries. Rebbi La said, what Rebbi Eleazar said about “one said in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris,” is about those who live at the same place, from where to [Sepphoris] it is seven mil, but from there to [Tiberias] it is nine mil. Rebbi Yose said, one understands from this, that if two people had a case in Tiberias; one of them said in the permanent court, but the other said in an ad hoc court; one listens to the one who said in the permanent court.

MISHNAH: Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives or disqualified. But if they are unexceptionable or qualified by the court he cannot disqualify them.

HALAKHAH: “Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so is the Mishnah: “His witness,” but not his witnesses. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, even his witnesses, as it was stated: “One always adds judges until judgment is rendered, and the judges may change their opinions. After judgment is rendered they may no longer change their opinions.” Rebbi Joḥanan agrees, that if these were the only ones, he cannot disqualify them. Zeˋira said, he and a person from the street can team up to disqualify this testimony. Rebbi Ḥanina asked, does not one witness force an oath everywhere? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by disqualification one can only be disqualified by a court. A relative does not have to be disqualified by the court. Rava bar Binah said in the name of Rav: Three are like final judgment.

HALAKHAH: “Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so is the Mishnah: “His witness,” but not his witnesses. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, even his witnesses, as it was stated: “One always adds judges until judgment is rendered, and the judges may change their opinions. After judgment is rendered they may no longer change their opinions.” Rebbi Joḥanan agrees, that if these were the only ones, he cannot disqualify them. Zeˋira said, he and a person from the street can team up to disqualify this testimony. Rebbi Ḥanina asked, does not one witness force an oath everywhere? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by disqualification one can only be disqualified by a court. A relative does not have to be disqualified by the court. Rava bar Binah said in the name of Rav: Three are like final judgment.

How have you explained [the Mishnah]? As not agreeing with R. Meir. What about the end of the mishnah: There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah. But we can infer that in all other matters they are the same; and so we come to the view of R. Meir, as it has been taught, If something happened to disqualify him and they appointed another priest to take his place, when the first returns to his service the second is still liable to all the obligations of the high priesthood, the words of R. Meir. R. Yose said: The first returns to his service whereas the second is not qualified to act as a high priest or as an ordinary priest.

(But perhaps the whole of the Mishnah states the opinions of R. Judah? — Is it possible that he should disqualify in the first and permit in the second?)

And he also opened his mouth and expounded the passage, "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails planted are the words of the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd" (Eccles. xii. 11). Wherefore are the words of the Law likened to goads? It is to tell thee, that as a goad is what keeps the heifer in her furrows, so as to produce sustenance for the world, so the words of the Law keep the learners of them from the ways of death for the ways of life. If you say, that as a goad is what moves, so the words of the Law will move; no, for the teaching says "nails." If you say, that as a nail is a thing which diminishes and does not add, so the words of the Law diminish and do not add; no, for the teaching says "planted." As planting is a thing which is fruitful and multiplies, so too the words of the Law are fruitful and multiply. "Masters of assemblies." These are the disciples of wise men, who sit by companies and study in the Law, some declaring unclean and others declaring clean, some binding and others loosing, some disqualifying and others pronouncing ceremonially pure. Perhaps a man may say, How under those circumstances am I to learn the Law? The teaching says, All of them "are given from one shepherd." One God gave them, one pastor uttered them from the mouth of the Lord of all that is made, blessed be He, for it is written, "and God spake all these words" (Ex. xx. 1). Also do thou make thine ear as the upper millstone, and procure for thyself an understanding heart to hear the words of those who declare unclean and the words of those who declare clean, the words of those who bind and the words of those who loose, the words of those who disqualify and the words of those who pronounce ceremonially pure. On the same occasion he said to them, It is not an orphan generation in the midst of which El'azar ben Azariah lives. And why did they not tell him without hesitation? It was on account of the matter that occurred. For there is a Baraitha, A matter occurred with regard to R. Jose, son of a Damascene woman, viz., that he went to visit R. El'azar in Lod. He said to him, What was there new in the College to day?

And in the case of heave-offering, though one of his hands be unclean etc. R. Shezbi says, It is in case of contact that this teaching holds, but in case there is no contact, it does not hold. Abai replied to him, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to make unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rab. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. If thou sayest, No doubt this is so in cases of non-contact, then here comes in the importance of the word "wiped;" but if thou sayest, In case of contact, yes; in case of non-contact, no; then what is the importance of the "wiped" hand? It has been reported also that Resh Lakish said, The Mishnah refers only to his own hand

and not to the hand of his companion; but R. Jochanan said, Whether it be his own hand or the hand of his companion, with that same hand he may disqualify, but not render unclean. Whence did he learn this? From the fact that it has been taught in the latter portion of the Mishnah, for the hand makes its fellow unclean in the case of hallowed things, but not in the case of heave-offering.

Why am I told this again? Lo, it was taught in the preceding clauses of the same Mishnah. But do you not think that one should learn from it that it is for the purpose of bringing in the hand of his companion? And moreover so powerful was it that Resh Lakish changed his view about it, for R. Jonah said, that R. Ami said, that Resh Lakish said, Whether it be his own hand, or the hand of his companion, with that same hand he may disqualify but not render unclean.

And to shew that there are things which can disqualify without rendering unclean, here is a teaching. For there is a canonical Mishnah, All that disqualifies for a heave-offering, renders the hands unclean, so as to be of secondary impurity. And a hand renders its fellow unclean. These are the words of R. Joshua. And other wise men say, The hands themselves are only of secondary uncleanness, and that which is secondary does not produce a second in the case of ordinary things (Yadaim, iii. 2). Do you think that it cannot make a second? Nay, you say, it makes a third. Or perhaps it makes neither a second nor a third. But moreover we have a Baraitha to quote on our side. For there is a Baraitha, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to render unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rabbi. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, With that same hand he may disqualify, but not render unclean.

And to shew that there are things which can disqualify without rendering unclean, here is a teaching. For there is a canonical Mishnah, All that disqualifies for a heave-offering, renders the hands unclean, so as to be of secondary impurity. And a hand renders its fellow unclean. These are the words of R. Joshua. And other wise men say, The hands themselves are only of secondary uncleanness, and that which is secondary does not produce a second in the case of ordinary things (Yadaim, iii. 2). Do you think that it cannot make a second? Nay, you say, it makes a third. Or perhaps it makes neither a second nor a third. But moreover we have a Baraitha to quote on our side. For there is a Baraitha, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to render unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rabbi. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, With that same hand he may disqualify, but not render unclean.

Rebbi Yosi says, In what are these words [that one disqualified witness can disqualify three] said? Only by capital cases, but by monetary cases the testimony can be maintained with the remaining [two witnesses]. Rebbi says, This [ruling] applies by both monetary cases and capital cases.

GEMARA:Rava says, and this [that one can disqualify the whole group of witnesses] is only when they all testified בתוך כדי דיבור. Rav Acha mDifti said to Revina, let's see, how long is בתוך כדי דיבור? The amount of time that it takes for a student to greet his teacher. A hundred [witnesses] is too many [to all give testimony in this time slot]?!

Rebbi Akiva says the third on didn't come etc. and just as by two [one could disqualify the group] etc. Rav said to Rav Papa But now, let the victim [who is a witness to his own murder] save [the murderer from being executed]? [The case] is where he was killed from behind.

Rava answered, this is what we say to them, Did you come to see or did you come to testify? If they respond that they came to testify, then if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified [witness], the whole [group of] testimony is dismissed. But if they respond that they came to see, [then they can't disqualify the whole group because otherwise] what should two brothers do who together witnessed a murder?