samaritan

MISHNAH: Any document signed by a Samaritan is invalid, except bills of divorce and bills of manumission. It happened that they brought before Rabban Gamliel at Kefar Othnay a bill of divorce whose witnesses were Samaritans and he declared it valid. All documents confirmed by a Gentile recorder’s office are valid, even if they are signed by Gentiles, except bills of divorce and bills of manumission. Rebbi Simeon says, all are valid; they said it only when they were made by private persons.

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: “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: “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.

Rebbi Aḥa said, the acts of a Gentile court are public knowledge. Then even if both [witnesses] are Samaritan? Did one not say that they are not conversant with the fine points in writing bills of divorce? But Rebbi Simeon validates their bills of divorce! Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: It turns out that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as Rebbi Eleazar said, even if no witnesses signed on it, it is valid, so Rebbi Simeon said, even if no witnesses signed on it, it is valid. But then even if it was made by private persons? This shows that it was necessary that Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the acts of a Gentile court are public knowledge. A bond was executed in Bet Shean, whose witnesses were Gentiles. Rebbi Yose says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree, one said it is invalid, the other said it is valid. Rebbi Abbahu explained: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is invalid, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is valid. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That a Jew should not lose money. But if that one would not lose money, the other would lose money! Rebbi Yudan said, it must be in order not to close the door before people, for tomorrow one would look to borrow but does not succeed.

MISHNAH: Any who are forbidden to marry in the congregation are permitted to marry one another but Rebbi Jehudah forbids. Rebbi Eliezer says, certain with certain are permitted, certain with questionable, questionable with certain, and questionable with questionable are forbidden. The following are questionable: the silenced one, the foundling, and the Samaritan.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah was walking on a road when he met a Samaritan who asked him, Rabbi, are you not the head of the Jews? He answered him, yes. He said to him, look what is written: You certainly shall put a king over yourself. It does not say “I shall put”, but “you shall put”, you appoint him over yourself.

Does one rend his garment nowadays? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥisqiah, 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: Samaritan! Does your mother have garments to supply me with? [His word] This implies that one rends for substitute names and rends his garments at the present time.

Does one rend his garment nowadays? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥisqiah, 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: Samaritan! Does your mother have garments to supply me with? [His word] This implies that one rends for substitute names and rends his garments at the present time.

“But one may put up an animal in a Samaritan hostelry,” etc. This implies that Samaritans are not suspected of forbidden relations. And it was stated thus: “A woman may be alone with two men, even if both are slaves or one a Samaritan and one a slave. But she should not be alone with a Gentile. His mother-in-law, and his wife’s sister, and all other forbidden relations should be alone with him but require the presence of two [others].”

“But one may put up an animal in a Samaritan hostelry,” etc. This implies that Samaritans are not suspected of forbidden relations. And it was stated thus: “A woman may be alone with two men, even if both are slaves or one a Samaritan and one a slave. But she should not be alone with a Gentile. His mother-in-law, and his wife’s sister, and all other forbidden relations should be alone with him but require the presence of two [others].”

“One who cuts a Gentile’s hair cuts it until he comes to the lock. Once he comes to the lock he desists. One who gets a haircut from a Gentile looks in the mirror, from a Samaritan he does not look into the mirror. They permitted the family of Rebbi that they might look, because they were in need of Roman government connections.” Three things they permitted the House of Rebbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock, and that they taught their children Greek, because they were in need of Roman government connections.

MISHNAH: The daughters of Samaritans are menstruating from their cribs, and Samaritan men make impure bottoms like uppers because they sleep with menstruating woman since they sit for every blood. But one is not guilty about them for entering the Temple and one does not burn heave because of them since their impurity is one of doubt.

MISHNAH Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun. One who has eaten Demai, or the first tithe from which Terumah has been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten food the size of an olive and the Samaritan may be included for Zimmun.

The Samaritan may be included for Zimmun. Why should he be? He is nothing better than an 'Am ha'ares, and there is a teaching : 'Amme ha'ares are not to be included for Zimmun !

Abbai said : It refers to a Samaritan who is a Haber. Raba said : Thou mayest even suppose that it refers to a Samaritan who is an 'Am ha'ares, and we are here dealing with the 'Am ha'ares so designated by the Rabbis who disagree in this matter with R. Meir. For there is a teaching : Who is an 'Am ha'ares? Whoever does not eat his non-holy food in a condition of ritual purity — these are the words of R. Meir ; but the Sages say : Whoever does not properly tithe his fruits. These Samaritans, however, do properly apportion the tithe, for they are careful to observe what is written in the Torah. The teacher has said : The commandments to which the Samaritans adhere they observe more scrupulously than the Israelite.

Abbai said : It refers to a Samaritan who is a Haber. Raba said : Thou mayest even suppose that it refers to a Samaritan who is an 'Am ha'ares, and we are here dealing with the 'Am ha'ares so designated by the Rabbis who disagree in this matter with R. Meir. For there is a teaching : Who is an 'Am ha'ares? Whoever does not eat his non-holy food in a condition of ritual purity — these are the words of R. Meir ; but the Sages say : Whoever does not properly tithe his fruits. These Samaritans, however, do properly apportion the tithe, for they are careful to observe what is written in the Torah. The teacher has said : The commandments to which the Samaritans adhere they observe more scrupulously than the Israelite.

One may make the response "Amen" after an Israelite who pronounces a benediction, but not after a Samaritan who pronounces a benediction until he has heard the whole of the benediction.

"Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." "Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." To include what? To include a slave and a Samaritan. We have already taught about this as they taught in a baraita: A slave and a Samaritan are exiled or lashed by way of [committing a crime against] an Israelite. And an Israelite is exiled or lashed by way of a slave or Samaritan.

"Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." "Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." To include what? To include a slave and a Samaritan. We have already taught about this as they taught in a baraita: A slave and a Samaritan are exiled or lashed by way of [committing a crime against] an Israelite. And an Israelite is exiled or lashed by way of a slave or Samaritan.

"Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." "Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." To include what? To include a slave and a Samaritan. We have already taught about this as they taught in a baraita: A slave and a Samaritan are exiled or lashed by way of [committing a crime against] an Israelite. And an Israelite is exiled or lashed by way of a slave or Samaritan.

This works out well if a slave or Samaritan is exiled by way of an Israelite or lashed. [He is exiled in a case where] he killed him [accidentally] and lashed [in a case where] he cursed him. But an Israelite who is exiled or lashed by way of Samaritan?! It works well with exile [in a case where] he killed him [accidentally]. But lashing, why? [If you say] because he cursed him, "the chieftain of your people do not curse" (Exodus 22:27)! [I.e. a Samaritan is not on of your people and thus this prohibition for which the punishment is lashes should not apply in this case]

This works out well if a slave or Samaritan is exiled by way of an Israelite or lashed. [He is exiled in a case where] he killed him [accidentally] and lashed [in a case where] he cursed him. But an Israelite who is exiled or lashed by way of Samaritan?! It works well with exile [in a case where] he killed him [accidentally]. But lashing, why? [If you say] because he cursed him, "the chieftain of your people do not curse" (Exodus 22:27)! [I.e. a Samaritan is not on of your people and thus this prohibition for which the punishment is lashes should not apply in this case]

This works out well if a slave or Samaritan is exiled by way of an Israelite or lashed. [He is exiled in a case where] he killed him [accidentally] and lashed [in a case where] he cursed him. But an Israelite who is exiled or lashed by way of Samaritan?! It works well with exile [in a case where] he killed him [accidentally]. But lashing, why? [If you say] because he cursed him, "the chieftain of your people do not curse" (Exodus 22:27)! [I.e. a Samaritan is not on of your people and thus this prohibition for which the punishment is lashes should not apply in this case]

Rather, Rav Aha son of Yaakov said: It's a case where he [the Israelite] testified against him [the Samaritan that he would be liable for lashing] and he was found guilty of falsely testifying [so whatever punishment he tried to give the Samaritan, he would suffer]. Similarly regarding a slave who testified against [an Israelite that would be punished with lashes] and was found to be a false witness—can a slave even give testimony?! [Therefore, this solution must be wrong because this half of the baraita doesn't make sense]. Rather, Rav Aha son of Rav Ika said: Here is what we are dealing with [where slave and Samaritan are lashed because of Israelite]: a case where he struck him with a wound

Rather, Rav Aha son of Yaakov said: It's a case where he [the Israelite] testified against him [the Samaritan that he would be liable for lashing] and he was found guilty of falsely testifying [so whatever punishment he tried to give the Samaritan, he would suffer]. Similarly regarding a slave who testified against [an Israelite that would be punished with lashes] and was found to be a false witness—can a slave even give testimony?! [Therefore, this solution must be wrong because this half of the baraita doesn't make sense]. Rather, Rav Aha son of Rav Ika said: Here is what we are dealing with [where slave and Samaritan are lashed because of Israelite]: a case where he struck him with a wound

Rather, Rav Aha son of Yaakov said: It's a case where he [the Israelite] testified against him [the Samaritan that he would be liable for lashing] and he was found guilty of falsely testifying [so whatever punishment he tried to give the Samaritan, he would suffer]. Similarly regarding a slave who testified against [an Israelite that would be punished with lashes] and was found to be a false witness—can a slave even give testimony?! [Therefore, this solution must be wrong because this half of the baraita doesn't make sense]. Rather, Rav Aha son of Rav Ika said: Here is what we are dealing with [where slave and Samaritan are lashed because of Israelite]: a case where he struck him with a wound