Chagigah

THE FORMER [OF EACH] PAIR WERE PRINCES1 AND THE LATTER WERE HEADS OF THE COURT.2 GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The three of the former pairs3 who said that the laying on of the hands may not be performed, and the two of the latter pairs who said that it may be performed, were Princes, and the others were Heads of the Court — this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages say: Judah b. Tabbai was Head of the Court, and Simeon b. Shetah was Prince. Who taught the following teaching of our Rabbis? R.4 Judah b. Tabbai said: May I see consolation,5 if I did not have a Zomem6 -witness put to death as a demonstration7 against the Sadducees8 who said that Zomemim-witnesses were not to be put to death unless [through their false evidence] the accused had [already] been put to death. Said Simeon b. Shetah to him: May I see consolation, if thou didst not shed innocent blood. For the Sages said: Zomemim-witnesses are not put to death until both of them have been proved Zomemim; and they are not flogged9 until both of them have been proved Zomemim; and they are not ordered to pay money [as damages]10 until both of them have been proved Zomemim. Forthwith Judah b. Tabbai undertook never to give a decision except in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah.11 All his days Judah b. Tabbai prostrated himself on the grave of the executed man, and his voice used to be heard. The people believed that it was the voice of the executed man; [but] he said to them: ‘It is my voice. Ye shall know this [by the fact that] on the morrow [when] I die my voice will not be heard’.12 R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: But perhaps he13 appeased him, or [the deceased] summoned him to judgment!14 — According to whom will this15 be? Granted, if you say [it is according to] R. Meir, who said that Simeon b. Shetah was Head of the Court [and] R. Judah b. Tabbai was Prince, that is why he decided points of law in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah; but if you say [it is according to] the Rabbis, who say that Judah b. Tabbai was Head of the Court [and] Simeon b. Shetah was Prince, how may the Head of the Court decide points of law in the presence of the Prince!16 — No,’he undertook’ is to be understood with reference to association. [He said]: I will not even join [with other judges to give a decision, unless Simeon b. Shetah is present].17 MENAHEM WENT FORTH AND SHAMMAI ENTERED etc. Whither did he go forth? Abaye said: He went forth into evil courses.18 Raba said: He went forth to the King's service. Thus it is also taught: Menahem went forth to the King's service, and there went forth with him eighty pairs of disciples dressed in silk. R. Shimon b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: Never let [the principle] of Shebuth19 [Rest] be unimportant in thy eyes. For the laying on of the hands [on a Festival-day] is [prohibited] only on account of Shebuth, yet the great men of the age differed thereon.20 But is this not already quite clear!21 — It is required on account of a precept [the fulfilment of which is prohibited] as Shebuth.22 But is not that too quite clear!23 — [It is required] to contradict the view that they differ regarding the laying on of the hands itself: thus he teaches us that it is in regard to Shebuth that they differ. 24 Rami b. Hama said: You can deduce from this25 that the laying on of hands must be done with all one's strength; for if you suppose that one's whole strength is not required, what [work] does one do by laying on the hands?26 An objection was raised: [It is written]: Speak unto the sons of Israel . . . and he shall lay his hands.27 The sons of Israel lay on the hands but the daughters of Israel do not lay on the hands. R. Jose and R. Simeon28 say: The daughters of Israel lay on the hands optionally.29 R. Jose said: Abba Eleazar told me: Once we had a calf which was a peace-sacrifice, and we brought it to the Women's Court,30 and women laid the hands on it — not that the laying on of the hands has to be done by women, but in order to gratify the women.31 Now if you suppose that we require the laying on of the hands to be done with all one's strength, would we, for the sake of gratifying the women, permit work to be done with holy sacrifices!32 Is it to be inferred, therefore, that we do not require all one's strength? — Actually, I can answer you that we do require [it to be] with all one's strength, [but the women] were told to hold their hands lightly.33 If so, [what need was there to say], ‘not that the laying on of the hands has to be done by women’? He could [more simply] have pointed out that it was no laying on of the hands at all! R. Ammi said: His argument runs: Firstly and secondly. Firstly, it was no laying on of the hands at all, and secondly, it was [done] In order to gratify the women.34 R. Papa said: One may conclude from this35 that it is forbidden [on a holy day to make use of] the sides [of an animal].36 For if you suppose that it is permitted [to make use of] the sides, let the hands be laid on the side.37 It must be concluded, therefore, that it is forbidden to make use of the sides.38 Midrash, p. 1072, n. 3. Mishnah (cf. Pe'ah II, 6); they were followed by the period of the Tannaim (v. Glos.). V. Ab. I, 4 (Sonc. ed., p. 3. n. 8); and supra p. 105, n. 6. (given by Tosaf. and Jast.), Judah b. Tabbai and his colleague looked forward to fuller restoration of Israel's glory than was achieved in their day, v. Mak., Sonc. ed., p. 27, n. 7. Levy, however, trans: ‘May I not behold the eternal salvation (ewige Heil) etc.’; and Rashi (Mak. 5b, the alternative explanation), interprets thus: He swore by the life of his children; might he receive condolences on their passing (if etc.). has been refuted by other witnesses testifying that the former were with them at another place at the time of the crime, v. Mak. 5a (Sonc. ed., p. 19f). If the Zomemim secure by their false testimony the conviction (but not the punishment) of an innocent person, the Rabbis held them to be amenable to the law of retaliation; v. Deut. XIX, 21 and Mak. 5b (Sonc. ed., p. 25). conviction involving the said penalty. The flogging of Zomemim-witnesses, however, may not always represent the carrying out of the lex talionis: lashes were sometimes inflicted as a substitute penalty; cf. Mak. I, If. phenomenon might be explained in this way: whilst Judah was alive, the wrongfully executed man cried out his protest from the grave; but when Judah b. Tabbai died he ceased to call either because he had been appeased by him, or because he had now been able to summon him before the Heavenly Tribunal. of his teacher deserves death). Cf. also J. Hag. II, 2 ed. 77d, where historical evidence is cited in favour of the view that Judah b. Tammai was Prince, and also in support of the opposite opinion (Tosaf.). According to either interpretation, the purpose of the answer is to show that Judah b. Tabbai could have been the Head of the Court, for his vow did not imply that he ever gave or proposed to give a decision in the presence of his superior, the Nasi. forbidden by the Rabbis as being out of harmony with the celebrations of the day’ (Jast.) Cf. Ex. X, 3, 15. principle of Shebuth, just as much, as by riding on it, which is prohibited in the above Mishnah. Shebuth. Shammai and Hillel is whether obligatory peace-offerings require laying on of hands, the view of Shammai being that only freewill-offerings require it. Mishnah. indifferent act which women are permitted to perform for their own gratification. once they have been dedicated to the Temple. (Cf. Deut. XV, 19 and Bek. II, 2-3). hands at all, but (the object was) to gratify the women’. A reading which is preferable to that of cur. edd. V. D.S.] like the sides of the animal.]