ספרי דברים 188

(דברים יט יד) לֹא תַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ, וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יט יג) ״לֹא תִגְזֹל״, וּמַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא תַסִּיג? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל הָעוֹקֵר תְּחוּמוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִים.

Pisqa’ 188²⁴⁹H:207-209; JN2:70-72.
1. “You shall not remove your kinsman’s boundary marker” (Dt.19:14).
Hasn’t it already been stated:
“Do not rob” (Lv.19:13)?
What, then, does the Teaching add by:
“You shall not remove . . .” (Dt.19:14)?
It teaches that
anyone who dislodges
the boundaries of his companion’s territory
transgresses these two proscriptions—
[one against theft and the other against removing boundaries].

יָכוֹל בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּנַחֲלָתְךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּנְחַל. בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִים, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם לָאו אֶחָד בִּלְבַד.

2. Is it possible to say that
these proscriptions apply
beyond the Land?
The Teaching states:
“Of your heritage that you will inherit” (Dt.19:14)—
Thus, the two proscriptions apply
in the Land of Israel.
But beyond the Land
one only transgresses a
single proscription [against robbery]

מִנַּיִן לָעוֹקֵר תְּחוּמִים שֶׁל שְׁבָטִים שֶׁעוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ. מִנַּיִן לְמַחֲלִיף דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְלָאוֹמֵר עַל טָמֵא טָהוֹר וְעַל טָהוֹר טָמֵא – שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ. מִנַּיִן לְמוֹכֵר קֶבֶר אֲבוֹתָיו שֶׁעוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ. יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִקְבַּר בּוֹ אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּנַחֲלָתְךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּנְחַל, הָא אִם קָבַר בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ נֵפֶל אֶחָד בִּרְשׁוּת – עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.

On what basis do I know that
one who dislodges
the boundaries of a tribal territory
transgresses a proscription?
The Teaching states:
“You shall not remove your kinsman’s boundary marker” (Dt.19:14).3. On what basis do I know of
one who transposes
a teaching of R. Eliezer’s [tradition]
with a teaching of R. Joshua’s [tradition],
or a teaching of R. Joshua’s
with a teaching of R. Eliezer’s —
so as to declare the unclean to be clean
or the clean to be unclean—
that he transgresses a proscription [of the Torah]?
The Teaching states:
“You shall not remove your kinsman’s boundary marker” (Dt.19:14)—
[even by confusing your study-partner’s mnemonics].²⁵⁰Preserving the mnemonic markers that enable students to find their way among diverse traditions is crucial to the project of rabbinic oral learning.
On what basis do I know that
one who sells his ancestral tomb
transgresses the proscription
[against moving a boundary marker]?
The Teaching states:
“You shall not remove . . . your kinsman’s . . . marker” (Dt.19:14)—
[even the marker of the dead kinsman].
Is it possible to say that
the proscription applies even
if no one had ever been buried in the tomb?
The Teaching states:
“Of your heritage that you will inherit” (Dt.19:14)—
[as long as the unused tomb remains in the family’s possession].
Indeed—even if only a single fetus
[who died within thirty days,
and thus could not inherit the plot,]
had ever been buried there—
even with familial permission [for the sale],
the seller transgresses a proscription.²⁵¹Cf. T. Ahil.16:12. See the comments of F:227, n.11 and H:459, n.1.

(דברים יט טו) לֹא יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בָּאִישׁ, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, לְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לְכָל עָוֹן,

4. “A single witness shall not rise in testimony against a man” (Dt.19:15).
I might infer only that
this applies to capital cases.
On what basis do I know that
it applies to monetary disputes as well?
The Teaching states:
“For any wrong-doing” (Dt.19:15)—
[including capital cases and monetary disputes].

לְקָרְבָּנוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וּלְכָל חַטָּאת.

On what basis do I know that
[charges of violating] sacrificial procedures
[require testimony of two witnesses]?²⁵²As discussed at M. Ker.3:1.
The Teaching states:
“For any sin”²⁵³Heb: khata’at. The same word applies to “sin” and the offering that expunges it, the Purification-offering. ( Dt.19:15)—
[including one requiring a Purification-offering].

לְמַכּוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּכָל חֵטְא אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא.

On what basis do I know that
[this applies to submission to] judicial lashings?
The Teaching states:
“Or any transgression²⁵⁴Heb: kheit; formed from the same root, kh-t-‘ as khata’at. one might commit” (Dt.19:15)—
[including submission to judicial lashings].

לְהַעֲלוֹת לִכְהוּנָּה וּלְהוֹרִיד מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לְכָל עָוֹן וּלְכָל חַטָּאת.

On what basis do I know that
[this applies to fraudulent] promotions to priestly lineage,
or [to fraudulent] demotions from priestly lineage?
The Teaching states:
“For any wrong-doing²⁵⁵`awon. and for any sin” (Dt.19:15).

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לְעֵדוּת אִישׁ, לְעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לְכָל עָוֹן וּלְכָל חַטָּאת בְּכָל חֵטְא אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא. אִם סוֹפֵנוּ לְרַבּוֹת אִשָּׁה, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ? לְעָוֹן אֵינוֹ קָם, קָם הוּא בָּאִשָּׁה לְהַשִּׂיאָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

5. [“Against a man” (Dt.19:
I infer only that
testimony against a man [requires two witnesses].
On what basis do I know that
testimony against a woman
[follows the same rule]?²⁵⁶Cf. Sifre Nu, 161.
The Teaching states:
“For any wrong-doing, for any sin, or any transgression one might commit” (Dt.19:15)—
[any implies that women’s transgressions fall under the same rule as men’s].
If, in the end, we are going to include
testimony against a woman,
what does the Teaching mean by:
“Against a man” (Dt.19:15)?—
[a single witness alone] does not suffice to offer
testimony of wrong-doing [against a woman],
but he may offer testimony
that enables her to be given in marriage:
words of R. Judah.²⁵⁷Cf. M.Yev.16:7.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לְעָוֹן אֵינוֹ קָם, קָם הוּא לִשְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: קַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים – וּמָה אִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין פִּיו מִצְטָרֵף עִם פִּי עֵד אֶחָד לְמִיתָה, הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. מָקוֹם שֶׁפִּיו מִצְטָרֵף עִם פִּי עֵד אֶחָד לְמָמוֹן, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא נִשְׁבָּע עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ? לָאו! מָה לְנִשְׁבָּע עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁכֵּן מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. יִשָּׁבַע עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לְכָל עָוֹן, לְעָוֹן אֵינוֹ קָם, קָם הוּא לִשְׁבוּעָה!

R. Yose says:
[A single witness alone] does not suffice to offer
testimony of wrong-doing [against a woman],
but he may offer testimony regarding her oaths.6. Explained R. Yose:
This is a matter of logical argument!
Just as in a capital case [the accused’s] testimony cannot combine
with that of a single witness to his act [to yield valid testimony],
yet he takes an [exculpating] oath on his own volition—
isn’t it reasonable to suppose that
where [the accused’s] testimony may combine
with that of a single witness [to yield valid testimony],
such as, a monetary dispute,
[the accused surely] takes an oath on his own volition?
No!
For [the one] who takes an [exculpating] oath on his own volition,
[in a monetary dispute] must pay his penalty on his own admission.
Therefore, he may take an oath
that combines with that of a single witness.²⁵⁸// T. Shavu. 5:6
But should a person take an oath
on the testimony of a single witness,
when, indeed, he does not pay
on the testimony of a single witness?
The Teaching states:
“For any wrong-doing” (Dt.19:15)—
on the question of his own wrong-doing he may not testify,
but he may testify by taking an oath.²⁵⁹Cf. T. Shavu. 5:4.

עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר, לֹא עַל פִּי כְתָבָם וְלֹא עַל פִּי תוּרְגְּמָן.

7. “On the word²⁶⁰Heb: `al pi; literally: “by the mouth.” The addition of davar (“the matter” or “the word”) yields the principle of oral recording of testimony. of two witnesses, or on the word of three witnesses,
shall the matter (davar) be established” (Dt.19:15)—
that is, [the testimony must be given orally,]
neither on the basis of their transcribed words,
nor on the basis of an interpreter.²⁶¹Cf. M.Mak.1:9).

עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מְקַנֵּא עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וּמַשְׁקָהּ עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: מָה אִם עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם – אֵין מִתְקַיֶּמֶת פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם, עֵדוּת הָאַחֲרוֹנָה, שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם – אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא תִתְקַיֵּם בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ״, כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה.

“On the word of two witnesses” (Dt.19:15).
From this verse they taught:
One charging his wife with infidelity—
R. Eliezer says:
he charges her
on the basis of two [eye-witness testimonies],
and forces her to drink the bitter waters
on the basis of one.²⁶²=M. Sotah 1:1.
One might have reasoned:
just as the first testimony,
which does not prohibit her permanently to her husband,
is invalid with fewer than two witnesses,
isn’t it reasonable that
the second testimony—
which does prohibit her permanently to her husband,
[unless she passes the ordeal of the bitter waters],
should be invalid with fewer than two?
The Teaching states:
“And there is no witness to her act” (Nu.5:13)—
any woman whose act was witnessed
would not drink the bitter waters
[since the ordeal resolves doubts about infidelity,
only in the absence of two witnesses].²⁶³// M. Sotah 6:3