משנה: בָּרַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן פָּטוּר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בָרַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן חַייָב׃ MISHNAH: If he escaped before sentence was passed and then grew the lower beard, he is not liable61If he is recaptured, he needs a new trial. But since by then he already is an adult able to have children, he cannot be tried as a deviant and rebellious son. If sentence already was passed, no new trial is needed; the prior sentence can be carried out.; but if he escaped after sentence was passed and then grew the lower beard, he is liable.
הלכה: בָּרַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. סָח לִי זְעִירָה מִשֵּׁם אַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלִַם. שְׁלֹשָׁה הֵן שֶׁאִם בִּיקְשׁוּ לִמְחוֹל מוֹחֲלִין. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן. סוֹטָה וּבֵן סוּרֵר וּמוֹרֶה וְזָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין. HALAKHAH: “If he escaped before sentence was passed,” etc. 62This paragraph is quoted in Sotah 4:2:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.4.2.2">Sotah 4:3, Notes 39–41. This is one of the few cases where the Leiden ms. does not copy the text but simply refers to it by “etc.” The parallel quotes in the Sotah.25a">Babli are Sotah 25a, Sanhedrin.88a">Sanhedrin88a. Rebbi Joshia said, Zeˋira told me in the name of the people of Jerusalem: In three cases, if they want to forgive, they may forgive. These are: The suspect wife, the deviant son, and the Elder rebelling against the [Supreme] Court.
סוֹטָה. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. שֶׁבַּעֲלָהּ אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִכְתְּבָה הַמְּגִילָּה. אֲתַא מֵימַר. וַאֲפִילוּ מִשֶּׁנִּכְתְּבָה הַמְּגִילָּה. וּבְשֶׁלֹּא נִמְחְקָה הַמְּגִילָּה. אֲבָל אִם נִמְחְקָה הַמְּגִילָּה לֹא בְדָא. The suspect wife, is that not a Mishnah, “one whose husband refuses to let her drink”? They wanted to say, before the scroll was written. He comes to tell, even after the scroll was written. But it does not apply to the case where the scroll had been erased63In the ordeal of the suspected adulteress, if the text of the curses involving the Divine Name has been erased, the procedure is irreversible, just as a judicial procedure is after judgment was passed..
בֵּן סוּרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. הָיָה אָבִיו רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ אֵינָהּ רוֹצָה. אִמּוֹ רוֹצָה וְאָבִיו אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. עַד שֶׁלֹּא עָמַד בְּדִין. אֲתַא מֵימַר לָךְ. וַאֲפִילוּ עָמַד בְּדִין. וּבְשֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ. אֲבָל אִם נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ לֹא בְדָא. The deviant son, is that not a Mishnah, “if his father was willing but not his mother, or his mother willing but his father unwilling”? They wanted to say, before he was tried. He comes to tell, even after he was tried. But it does not apply to the case where judgment had been passed.
זָקֵן מַמְרֵא. הָדָא דְתֵימַר שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹרְגוֹ. אֲבָל לְהַחֲזִירוֹ לֹא הָיוּ מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְקוֹמוֹ. The rebellious Elder64Who refuses to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court sitting on the Temple Mount, Deuteronomy.17.8-13">Deut. 17:8–13. Even if he is not executed, he has to be stripped of his judicial functions.; that means not to kill him. But they cannot let him return to his place.
וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי אֶצֶל רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּתֵירָה לִנְצִיבִין עַל שְׁנַיִם הוֹדָה לִי וְעַל אֶחָד לֹא הוֹדָה לִי. עַל זָקֵן מַמְרֵא לֹא הוֹדָה לִי כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִרְבּוּ מַחֲלוֹקוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. 65This continues the statement of Rebbi Joshia which was interrupted by the discussion of the three cases. In the Babli, the dissenters are “my colleagues in the South.” But when I came to Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra at Nisibis, he agreed with me in two cases and disagreed in one. He disagreed about the rebellious Elder, lest quarrels increase in Israel66The suspected adulteress and the deviant and rebellious son can be prosecuted only on request of the injured party; refusal to obey the instructions of the Supreme Court must be prosecuted automatically..
מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. הָבֵא לִי בַעֲלִי וַאֲנִי שׁוֹתָה. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין כָּאן בַּעַל לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ הֶחֱזִירָתָהּ הַתּוֹרָה לִסְפֵיקָה וּסְפֵיקָה לִסְפֵיקָה. וּסְפֵיקָה לְחוּדֵיהּ. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? “Bring me my husband and I shall drink.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since there is no husband to let her drink, the Torah returns her to a state of doubt, which induces another doubt, which remains a doubt67This paragraph has nothing to do with the current subject but belongs to Sotah 4:2:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.4.2.2">Sotah 4:3. It was omitted there together with the preceding four paragraphs.
If a husband suspects his wife of adultery and warns her in the presence of two adult witnesses not to be with her suspected paramour, then if there is circumstantial evidence of adultery but no proof which would hold up in court, the wife is forbidden to her husband until she undergoes the ordeal by drinking the magic water in the Temple court (Numbers.11.5-31">Num. 11:5–31). If the ordeal confirms her adultery, she is divorced as adulteress without any money.The ordeal must take place in the presence of the husband. If the husband dies before the ordeal can take place, the woman cannot drink. The House of Shammai rules that she is a widow, entitled to all benefits due to a widow, since the death of her husband barred her from clearing her name without her fault. The House of Hillel hold that as suspected adulteress she cannot go to court to collect money from the heirs to the estate since only valid claims can be enforced in court; it is not the heirs’ doing that she cannot prove her case (Sotah 4:1:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.4.1.3">Soṭah 4:1 Notes 13–16)..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַפּוֹגֶמֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. תַּנֵּי הַפּוֹגֶמֶת לֹא הַפּוֹחֶתֶת. כֵּיצַד. הָֽיְתָה כְתוּבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת מְנָה נִפְרַעַת שֶׂלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. מַה בֵין הַפּוֹגֶמֶת וּמַה בֵין הַפּוֹחֶתֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. [פּוֹגֶמֶת] בָּא מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן בֵּנֹתַיִים. פּוֹחֶתֶת לֹא בָא מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן בֵּנֹתַיִים. 69The text from here to the end of the Halakhah is mainly from Ketubot 9:7:3-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.9.7.3-6">Ketubot 9:7, Notes 167–185. It has no connection with the theme in Sanhedrin, only a tenuous one with the previously quoted text from Sotah. The text here is secondary as shown by a few omissions. There, we stated: “If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.” It was stated “compromised”, not that she reduced [her ketubah]. How? If her ketubah was 200 but she claims a mina, she is paid without an oath. What is the difference between one who did compromise and one who claims less? Rebbi Ḥanina said, if she compromises there was a transaction between them; if she claims less there was no transaction between them.
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. כְּמַה דַּתֲּ מַר תַּמָּן. וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְדִכְוָתָהּ וְעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְחוּתָה לֹא תִיפְחַת אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעֵד אֶחָד מְעִידָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְרוּעָה אֵינוֹ מַכְחִישׁ שְׁנַיִם. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁמֵּעִיד שֶׁפְּחוּתָה מַכְחִישׁ אֶת שְׁנַיִם. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Since we stated there: “If one witness testified that [the ketubah] was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath”; should it be similar that if one witness testifies that [the ketubah] was reduced, she shall not be able to collect the reduced amount without an oath? Rebbi Yose said, at the moment when one witness testified that it was paid, he does not contradict two [witnesses]; but when he testifies that it was reduced he would contradict two [witnesses.]
תַּנֵּי. וְהַנִּפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו לֹא תִיפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. וְנִפְרָעִים מֵאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. תִּיפְתָּר בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁהָרִיבִּית אוֹכֶלֶת בּוֹ. וּבֵית דִּין גּוֹבִין רִבִּית. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁעָרַב לוֹ מִגּוֹי. 70This paragraph is from Ketubot 9:8:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.9.8.3">Ketubot 9:9, Notes 200–204. It was stated: “If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.” Can one collect from a person in his absence? Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it about a contract for which interest is due. Would the court collect interest? Explain that it was guaranteed for a Gentile.
וְהָתַנֵּי. יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁפָּגַם אָבִיו שְׁטָר חוֹב הַבֵּן גּוֹבֶה בְלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. בָּזֶה יָפֶה כֹחַ הַבֵּן מִכֹּחַ הָאָב. שֶׁהָאָב אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְנִשְׁבַּע שְׁבוּעַת יוֹרֵשׁ. שֶׁלֹּא פִיקַּדְנוּ אַבָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ שְׁטָר בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁלְּאַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָרוּעַ. הָא אִם נִמָצָא פָרוּעַ. רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה בָעֵי. מַתְנִיתָא דְבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. נוֹטֶלֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְלֹא שׁוֹתָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. טַעֲמוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי הָבֵא לִי בַעֲלִי וַאֲנִי שׁוֹתָה. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּדִין הָיָה אֲפִילוּ אָבִיו לֹא יִשְׁבַּע. תַּקָּנָה תִיקְנוּ בוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁבַּע. בּוֹ תִיקְנוּ וּבִבְנוֹ לֹא תִיקְנוּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּת הֶעֱמַדְתָּ אֶת בְּנוֹ עַל דִּין תּוֹרָה. It was stated: If an heir’s father held a partially paid promissory note, the son collects without swearing. In this the son’s power is greater than the father’s since the father can collect only by swearing. Rebbi Eleazar said, nevertheless he has to execute an heir’s oath, “that our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents stating that this note was paid.” Therefore, if there was a document, the note was paid. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does the baraita follow the House of Shammai? For the House of Shammai say, “she collects her ketubah and does not drink.” Rebbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is: bring my husband and I shall drink! But here, it would be in order that even his father would not have to swear. They instituted a rule that he has to swear. They instituted this for him, but not for his son. When he died, you put his son on the biblical rule.
נִתְחַייֵב אָבִיו שְׁבוּעָה בְּבֵית דִּין וּמֵת אֵין בְּנוֹ גוֹבֶה. דִּלֹא כֵן מָה נָן אָֽמְרִין. יֵשׁ אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ שְׁבוּעָתוֹ לִבְנוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. הָכֵין אִיתְאֲמָרַת. פָּגַם אָבִיו שְׁטָרוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין וּמֵת אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה. רַב חִסְדָּא בָעֵי. בְּגִין דַּהֲלִיךְ תַּרְתֵּין פְּסִיעָן הוּא מַפְסִיד. אִילּוּ פְגָמוֹ חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין אַתְּ מַר. גּוֹבֶה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפְּגָמוֹ בְבֵית דִּין אַתֲּ מַר. אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה. If a father became obligated to swear in court and died, his son cannot collect. If it were otherwise, what could we say? Can a man let his son inherit an obligation to swear? Rebbi 71In Ketubot: Abun. Ba said, it was said as follows: if a man compromised his document in court, his son cannot collect. 72This is also quoted in Ševuot 7:6 (38a l. 25). Rav Ḥisda asked: Because he walked two steps, does he lose? If he compromised it outside the court, he collects. Because he compromised it in court, he cannot collect?