skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Semichah can also mean Rabbinical ordination in an unbroken chain since Moses. Once the Romans enacted that anyone who confers ordination be killed, anyone who accepts ordination be killed, and the nearest town be destroyed. Yehudah ben Bava placed himself between two mountains and ordained five Sages there. When the enemies discovered them, he said to his students, “My sons, run! - and I will be like a rock that cannot be turned.” The soldiers drove three hundred spears through him and made him like a sieve. Three Sages are required for ordination, but Yehudah ben Bava alone is mentioned because of his importance.
Art: Jean-Honore Fragonard - Jeroboam Offering Sacrifice for the Idol
It may be necessary to proclaim a leap year if the grain is too young by Passover, if the ovens for Passover sacrifices became ruined in the rain, or because the Jews in Diaspora started on their journey to Jerusalem but will not reach it on time; additionally if the sheep and goats will be too young by Passover, or if the doves are too tender.
The extra month of the leap year is always inserted before the month of Passover, thus it becomes the Second month of Adar, when Purim is celebrated.
However, a leap year is never proclaimed before Rosh HaShanah, for if it were, people might forget about it by the time that the Second Adar comes six months later. Then they might mistakenly celebrate Passover on the Second Adar and consequently transgress the prohibition of eating leavened bread in the time of real Passover.
Art: Joseph Mallord William Turner - Jerusalem from the Latin Convent
The Jewish year is lunisolar. Since twelve lunar months are less than a solar year by eleven days, and since Passover has to be in spring, “Guard the month of young grain to celebrate Passover...”, an extra month is at times inserted. The judges who decide when to insert a month need to be appointed on the day before the discussion.
It once happened that Rabban Gamliel invited seven judges, but eight assembled. Rabban Gamliel then said, “He who was not invited should exit,” on which Shmuel the Minor, who was, in fact, the greatest of them, exited, taking the blame on himself and sparing humiliation of the uninvited one.
Rabbi Meir learned from him. When a woman came to his academy claiming that one of his students betrothed her through cohabitation, Rabbi Meir was the first to give her a Get (divorce), and then all the students followed suit.
Art: Matthias Schmid - Declaration of Love
If someone says, “A certain person cohabited with my wife,” (a sin for which both parties are liable to the death penalty,) he and another witness can join in testifying against the adulterer, but not against the adulteress. A man is considered a relative of his wife, and a relative cannot testify. Even though he testifies about one act, we believe him regarding the adulterer, but not regarding his wife. This principle is called "we split the testimony".
Cases of lashes are decided by three judges: "...And they (the judges) shall judge them..." gives two judges as the minimal number of “they,” and since a court consisting of an even number of judges is not acceptable, one more judge is added. Rabbi Ishmael requires twenty three judges, based on the use of the same word "evildoer" in "...evildoer liable to lashes..." and in "...who is an evildoer to die."
Art: Gustav Klimt- The Kiss
Rabbi Meir requires only three judges to judge a husband who defames his wife, but the Sages require twenty three. Here are four out of eight possible reasons for the disagreement.
* The husband comes without the support of the witnesses, but the Sages fear that witnesses to adultery might come forward when gossip spreads;
* The husband claimed to have witnesses of adultery, and the court of twenty three was convened to try this capital case, but then the husband failed to produce witnesses. The Sages rule that the original twenty three judges should be retained for the sake of their honor;
* The witnesses warned the woman that if she commits adultery she will be liable to the death penalty, but did not specify the method of execution;
* The woman was learned, and the witnesses did not give her any warning not to commit adultery.
Art: Ivan Nikolaevich Kramskoy - Reading (portrait of the artist's wife)
Claims against a rapist, a seducer, and the claim of a defamer are judged by the court of three – this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages says that the claim of a defamer is judged by a court of twenty three (small Sanhedrin), because cases of defamation include capital cases.
A defamer usually refers to a husband who falsely declares in court that his wife was not a virgin when their marriage was consummated. He claims that she had committed adultery after they were legally married and produces false witnesses to her adultery. After the witnesses are found false, he must pay a fine of 100 shekels to her father, he is liable to lashes, and he may never divorce her against her will.
Art: Gabriel Metsu - The Cittern Player
Rav Huna said, “Discord is comparable to a channel from an overflowing river – once it starts, it will continue to widen” - as in Proverbs, “The opening of a channel is a beginning of a discord.” Abaye Kashisha said, “Discord is like a plank in a bridge: once people walk on it, it becomes firm and stays firm.”
One man liked to say, “Fortunate is one who hears his denigration without responding. A hundred misfortunes will pass him by.” Said Rav Yehudah, “beginning of discord (ראשית מדון)“ can be translated as beginning of a hundred misfortunes (ריש מאה דיני).
One man liked to say, “When our love was strong, we could have lain together on the width of a sword, but now a bed of sixty amot (100 feet) does not suffice for us.” Said Rav Huna - and so it is with God, at first it was "...and I will meet you (Moses) there and speak to you..." from above the ten hand-breadth Ark, but later about the Temple built by Solomon “...Says God - what house can you build for me?”
Art: Vincent Van Gogh - Bridge at Arles
Rabbi Eliezer ben R. Yossi says, “It is forbidden for a judge to arbitrate a compromise.” It is certainly permissible for disputants to settle out of court, or to ask an arbitrator to help them. However, once they come to court, the judge who arbitrates a compromise shows that in his opinion the compromise settlement is more correct than an appropriate ruling based on Torah law. Furthermore, in settlement the would-be winner is robbed of some money.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha says on the contrary that before the verdict it is a meritorious deed for a judge to arbitrate a compromise - “...execute truth and judgment of piece...”, and “judgment of piece” means compromise - like king David, who “...rendered judgment and righteousness...” And Rabbi Eliezer explains that king David would render a strict judgment first, but then if the loosing party was poor, he would pay his own money.
Art: Louis Katzenstein - Anthony van Dyck at the Court of Charles I
It is thus understandable why one needs a permission to judge monetary cases. But why does he need it when judging the cases of ritual, provided that he is knowledgeable? Because of a story that happened when one student allowed to make ritually pure dough with egg yolk (מי ביצים, mei beitsim), and the people understood him as saying marsh water (מי בצעים, mei betsaim). After this it was instituted that one may not render decisions before he gets permission from his teacher, who will ascertain that he has clear diction and his rulings will be understood properly.
Art: Jean-Louis Laneuville - Portrait of the politician Bertrand Barère de Vieuzac
The real reason why Rabbi Yehudah the Prince requires five judges is because in “...whomever the judges condemn...” the word “condemn,” ירשיען is plural, which means two judges. Another two judges are mentioned below, and since the court needs an odd number of judges to be able to rule by majority, the total is five.
The Sages, however, say that since the word “condemn” ירשיען is written defectively, without an usual letter vav ירשיעון that one would expect for plural, it means one judge. Therefore, their count is three judges.
The basic argument here is whether the pronounced form of the word (Rabbi Yehudah) or its written form (Sages) is more important. Other arguments hinging on the same “written or pronounced” premise include the number of blood applications of a sacrifice needed for atonement, the number of walls in a sukkah, and the amount of blood from two corpses that creates ritual impurity.
Art: Jean Changenet - Three Prophets
Rav Acha says that according to Biblical law, one judge is qualified to adjudicate loan cases, because “...with justice shall thou judge your fellow” is expressed in singular form “thou.” However, because of the concern that a solitary judge might be chosen from commoners, not knowledgeable in monetary law, the Sages decreed that three judges are necessary even in loan cases.
But could three judges not be all commoners, not knowledgeable in monetary law? - No, at least one of them will have picked some knowledge. If so, they should not be liable for errors, like professional judges? Were they to be exempt, they would be even more ignorant corner dwellers.
In the verses of “...the master of the house shall approach a judge...” the word “judge” is mentioned three times, so three judges are needed. However, Rebbi says that five judges are needed to start, so that at least three reach the same conclusion.
Art: Barthel Bruyn - Portrait of a Man with Three Sons
Monetary cases cover most areas of civil dispute. Such cases are judged by the courts of three qualified judges. Judges act based on the testimony given by two qualified witnesses. There is no concept of a jury and, in general, no concept of circumstantial evidence.
Cases of robbery and bodily injury are also monetary cases, adjudicated by courts of three qualified judges. Qualified in this context means that besides knowing relevant Torah law and scientific discovery, they must also possess "semicha," an uninterrupted chain of ordination going back to Moses.
However, cases of loans can be adjudicated even by judges without semicha. This was an additional enactment made in order "not to close doors for the would-be borrowers" so lenders would find it easy to resolve loan questions and wouldn't always require ordained judges in loan disputes.
Art: Anthony Van Dyck - Charles I in three positions
Ben Nannas, however, says that in this case the lender cannot collect from the guarantor at all. Said Rabbi Ishmael to him, “Why?” Explains Ben Nannas: If a creditor was strangling someone in the street, and this fellow encountered them and said to the creditor, “Leave him be, and I will give you the money that he owes” - the guarantor is not liable, because the lender did not lend the money trusting the guarantor in the first place.
Said Rabbi Ishmael, “One who wishes to become wise should occupy himself with the study of monetary law”, for no other branch of Torah law provides the human intellect with as wide-ranging a field of study for reasoning and analysis. Continued Rabbi Ishmael, “And one who wishes to occupy himself with the study of monetary law should serve Shimon ben Nannas.” Nevertheless, the law follows Rabbi Ishmael.
Art: Pieter Codde - Young Scholar in His Study
However, if the loan is taken out before the witnesses but not recorded in a document, the creditor can collect only from unencumbered properties, that is, fields that are still in the borrower's possession.
If the lender produces against the borrower a note written in the borrower's own hand, the lender still collects only from the unencumbered properties.
Art: BARTHOLOMEUS VAN DER HELST - Regebts of the Wallon Orphanage
When one guarantees payment on somebody's loan, even when the lender says, "I will have the right to collect from either the borrower or the guarantor," he still cannot go to the guarantor if the borrower has apparent resources to pay. Only when the guarantor accepts a higher responsibility with language like "give him the money, and I accept on myself the payment" can the lender go to the guarantor without attempting to collect from the borrower.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that even in that case, the lender cannot do it, but this is one of the three cases where the law does not follow him.
Art: Interior with smoking and a drinking man by the fire by Quiringh Gerritsz. van Brekelenkam
If a man says to his son on his deathbed, “One document among my several loan documents has been paid, but I don’t know which one it is” – all the loan documents are treated as paid, since each borrower can claim that it is his debt that is paid. If two loan documents were from a single borrower, the larger one is considered paid.
One who lends money to his fellow on the basis of a guarantor may not collect first from the guarantor. However, if the lender said to the guarantor at the time of the loan, “I am making this loan on the condition that I should be able to collect from whomever I wish” - then he may indeed collect from the guarantor.
Art: Leon Daniel Saubes - Portrait of Victor Hugo on his deathbed
If there were two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father died and left them a bathhouse or an olive press, then if the father made those properties for renting, the brothers can divide the rent. However, if they were made for personal use, the rich brother can insist that they are kept for shared use, even though the poor brother cannot take advantage of it. The rich brother can say to him, “Buy slaves, so that they should use the bathhouse; buy olives and press them.”
If there were two men in the same town, and the name of both was Yosef ben Shimon, they cannot produce a loan document for collection against each other, because each can claim that he is the lender, nor can anybody collect from one of them. Therefore, they should add their grandfather’s name, or some distinguishing sign.
Art: Antoon Van Dyck - Lucas and Cornelis de Wae
One who repaid part of his debt will naturally want to ensure that the loan document will not be used against him to collect the debt twice. Unlike the previous case, they do not have a third party that the both trust. They cannot add to the loan document, because an unscrupulous lender can cut this off. Nor can they add to the top of the document, because witnesses must sign immediately below the last line.
Rabbi Yehudah says that they should write a new loan document for the remainder of the debt, but the borrower should not be forced to guard the receipt. Rabbi Yossi says that they should write a receipt, and the borrower should guard it, since people pay larger debts faster, and since “…a borrower is a servant to the lender.” The accepted law follows Rabbi Yossi.
Art: Signing of the preliminary Treaty of Paris
If the occupant of a property comes to litigate with a previous owner concerning ownership of the property, and asserts that he can prove that the property is his with both a deed and a chazakah (three years occupancy) – then Rebbi says that he is judged based on the deed, and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says that he is judged based on chazakah. What is the reason behind their argument?
Rav Dimi says that the deed was in the name of a third party, and the argument is whether the transfer of the deed also transfers property. Abaye says that invalid witnesses signed, and the argument is which witnesses accomplish the transfer – those that sign or those that see it. R’ Avina (Ravina) says that they argue whether one who made a superfluous claim is now required to corroborate it, with Rebbi saying “no” and Rabbi Shimon saying “yes.”
Art: Wybrand Hendriks - Notary Kohne and His Clerk
When a creditor attempts to collect his debt, he lodges a complaint in court, proffering his loan document as a proof. If the debtor cannot pay, the court tears up the loan document and provides the lender with a collection warrant. The lender searches for assets belonging to the borrower and when he finds those subject to his lien, he takes the collection warrant to court at that locale. The court tears up the collection warrant and issues a repossession warrant. When the lender takes possession of the property, the court tears up the repossession warrant and writes a certificate of appraisal, used in the eventuality that the borrower later pays the amount and reclaims his field.
If one claims that he lost a deed of sale, they write a replacement for him, but omit the repossession guarantee, to prevent the possibility of him later collecting twice, breaking the sequence outlined above.
Art: Jan de Bray - The Haarlem Painters' Guild
One repaid part of his debt. The borrower and lender did not want to go through the trouble of writing a receipt. By right, the lender should keep the loan document, but the borrower was afraid that the lender would dishonestly collect the entire loan again. Therefore, they deposited the loan document with a third party.
The lender then said to the third party, “If I don't pay the balance by such-and-such date, give the document to the lender” - meaning that he forfeits the partial payment. In the end he did not pay. Rabbi Yossi says that the third party should give the loan document to the lender. Rabbi Yehudah says that he should not give it back, because the borrower never really meant it.
After much deliberation the law is not like Rabbi Yossi – promises like this one are not binding.
Art: Jan van Ravesteyn - Pieter van Veen, his son Cornelis and his clerk Hendrick Borsman
Generally, for documents to be legally valid, they must be written with the knowledge and consent of the one to whose detriment they are. For example, a loan document can be written only with the authorization of the borrower. An exception is a Get, a bill of divorce.
A scribe may write a Get for a man even if his wife is not with him. In the eleventh century Rabbeinu Gershom instituted a ban against divorcing one's wife against her will. He may also write a receipt for a woman, stating that she received her Ketubah, even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee.
A loan document may be written for the borrower even if the lender is not with him, but not for the lender, unless the borrower is with him, and the borrower pays the fee.
Art: Rembrandt - Titus at his desk
If a loan document restates the amount in different units, and these don't agree, such as “so-and-so borrowed 100 zuz, which is 20 sela” - whereas in truth 20 sela constitutes only 80 zuz - the lender can collect only the lesser of the two amounts, 20 sela in our example, following the rule that “to extract money from his fellow, the burden of proof lies with the claimant.”
If the amount becomes erased, such as “... selas,” the minimum of 2 is assumed.
The amount of the loan is mentioned in the upper portion of the document and then again at the end of the document, as in “I have accepted upon myself and upon my heirs a lien for the aforementioned sum of X zuzim,” - so that if a letter is missing from the statement in the lower portion, it can be learned from the upper one.
Art: Joos van Craesbeeck - The Wedding Contract
Said Rav: “From three transgressions no man is saved each day: thoughts of sin, lack of concentration in prayer, and speaking negatively about others.” Did Rav really mean that everybody engages in negative speech daily? Rather, he meant a hint of negative speech by using body language and voice inflection.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, “In a place where both open and bound documents are used, if one instructs to write an open one, but the scribe wrote a bound one, it is acceptable, because he only said it by way of example.”
Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai also subscribes to the “by way of example” idea, as in the case of a woman who appointed an agent to accept her betrothal money of a silver dinar, but the agent accepted a gold dinar. She mentioned the silver dinar only by way of example, and she is betrothed with a golden dinar.
Art: Louis Charles Moeller - The gossips
Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel said that although in a bound document the witnesses should sign on the outside, nevertheless if they signed on the inside, it is valid, since one can unbind it and convert it to a regular document.
Rebbi offered a rebuttal: the dating system on the two types of document is different. Jews dated their documents by the year of rule of the current monarch. Governments used to add a year to the number of years of the current king, to proclaim that a relatively new monarch is already established. The Sages, desiring to make a bound document very complex, also added a year for bound documents, but not for regular ones. One could unbind the document, effectively changing the loan date, receive the payment, pretend to have lost the loan document, offer a receipt, and then collect the second time.
But according to Rabbi Chanina, a receipt is never used.
Art: Collier, Edwart - Self-Portrait with a Vanitas Still- Life
