Pisqa’ 188²⁴⁹

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].

footnotes: ²⁴⁹ H:207-209; JN2:70-72.

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]

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].²⁵⁰ 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.**²⁵¹

footnotes: ²⁵⁰ Preserving the mnemonic markers that enable students to find their way among diverse traditions is crucial to the project of rabbinic oral learning. ²⁵¹ Cf. T. Ahil.16:12. See the comments of F:227, n.11 and H:459, n.1.

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].

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

footnotes: ²⁵² As discussed at M. Ker.3:1. ²⁵³ Heb: khata’at.

On what basis do I know that [this applies to submission to] judicial lashings? The Teaching states: “Or any transgression²⁵⁴ formed from the same root, kh-t-‘ as khata’at. one might commit” (Dt. 19:15)— [including submission to judicial lashings].

footnotes: ²⁵⁴ Heb: kheit;

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 and for any sin” (Dt. 19:15).

footnotes: ²⁵⁵ `awon.

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]?²⁵⁶ 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

**words of R. Judah.**²⁵⁷

footnotes: ²⁵⁶ Cf. Sifre Nu, 161. ²⁵⁷ Cf. M.Yev.16:7.

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 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?

“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.**²⁵⁹

footnotes: ²⁵⁸ // T. Shavu. 5:6 ²⁵⁹ Cf. T. Shavu. 5:4.

7. “On the word²⁶⁰ 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.**²⁶¹

footnotes: ²⁶⁰ Heb: `al pi; ²⁶¹ Cf. M.Mak.1:9).

“On the word of two witnesses” (Dt. 19:15). From this verse they taught: One charging his wife with infidelity—

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

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?

“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

footnotes: ²⁶² =M. Sotah 1:1. ²⁶³ // M. Sotah 6:3