Egyptian-Hebrew stream·Mishnah·Shabbat — Chapter XVI
Saving sacred writings from fire
The priority of saving sacred writings from a Sabbath conflagration; what may and may not be saved; the limits of saving one's own goods; the rabbinic decree extinguishing the lamp on the Sabbath only when life is endangered.
Source context
- Theme
- regulation of testimony establishing a husband's death and its legal consequences for remarriage
Steiner
not engaged in the GA corpus
Cross-tradition
- Roman law (ius gentium)Roman procedural law similarly required formal testimony and witness standards to establish civil status changes such as death and inheritance, showing cross-tradition congruence in the codification of evidentiary thresholds for status-altering legal acts.
- Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh)The fiqh tradition's treatment of the missing husband (mafqud) and the conditions under which a wife may be declared free to remarry displays cross-tradition congruence with the Mishnaic concern for regulated testimony and judicial authority over marital dissolution.
Chapter XVI
CHAPTER XVI.
§ 1. All sacred writings are to be saved out of a conflagration,
whether they be read in [on the Sabbath] or not, 1 and in whatever language they be written, they must be taken care of. Why are they not read in? In order not to neglect [miss] the discourse in the Medrash. The cover of a book is to be saved along with the book, and the cover [case] of the Tephilin, even though there be money in it. Whither may they be carried for safety? Into any place that is completely inclosed. Ben Bethera saith, "Even if the place be not completely, inclosed [but is partly open on one side, they may carry it in and save it out of a conflagration]."
§ 2. Food for [the] three [Sabbath] meals is to be saved; for man, that which is fit for human food; and for beasts, that which is fit for animal [food]. How is this to be understood? If the fire broke out on the Sabbath-evening, food for three meals is to be saved; if in the morning, food for two meals is to be saved; and if at noon, food for one meal is to be saved. R. José saith, "At all times food for three meals is to be saved.
§ 3. A basket filled with loaves may be saved, even though it contain [food sufficient for] one hundred meals; also a [large] fig-cake, and a cask of wine. It is lawful to call to others, "Come and save for yourselves [whatever you can];" if those who save are knowing, 2 they will settle accounts with the owner after the Sabbath. 3 Whither may they [the articles saved] be carried for safety? Into any court that is combined by Erub; 4 Ben Bethera saith, "Even into one that is not so combined."
§. 4 Thither he may carry out all vessels required [for his meals that day]. He dresses [himself] in as many [garments] as he can put on, and girds round him as much as he can gird. R. José saith, "[He must not put on more than] eighteen [pieces of ordinary] wearing-apparel; and he may go back and again dress in, and put on [as much as he can] and carry it out, and call to others, 'Come, and save with me' [help me to save]."
§ 5. R. Simeon ben Nonos saith, "They may spread a goat-skin
over a chest, or a box, or a cupboard, which has caught fire, as it will only get singed. It is also lawful to erect a partition with any kind of vessels, be they full [of water] or empty, to prevent the fire from spreading. R. José forbids this being done with new crockery-ware filled with water, as this [kind of vessels] cannot stand the heat, but would burst, and extinguish the fire.
§ 6. If a heathen comes to put out the conflagration, he is not to be told, "extinguish," or "do not extinguish," because it is not obligatory on them [Israelites], to make him observe the Sabbath-rest. But if a minor [an Israelitish child] wishes to extinguish [the conflagration], they must not allow him [so to do], as it is obligatory on them [Israelites] to make him observe the Sabbath-rest.
§ 7. A dish may be put over the light, to prevent the beam [of the roof] from catching fire; also [a dish may be put] over the ordure [of poultry], [on account of] children; and over a scorpion, that it may not bite. R. Jehudah said, "It happened that such a case was brought before R. Jochanan ben Sachai, at Arob, when he remarked, 'I doubt whether I ought not to have inflicted a sin-offering' [on the accused]." 5
§ 8. If a heathen has lighted a candle, an Israelite may use the light; but if [the heathen has lighted it] on purpose for the Israelite, it is prohibited [to use it]; if a heathen has drawn water to give to his cattle to drink, the Israelite may give his cattle to drink after him; but if [the heathen has drawn the water] on purpose for the Israelite, it is prohibited [to use it]. If a heathen has made a step to descend [from a ship], an Israelite may descend [thereon] after him, but if [the heathen has made it on purpose] for the Israelite, it is prohibited to use it. It once happened that Rabbon Gamaliel and the elders arrived in a ship, and a heathen made a step by which he descended, and Rabbon Gamaliel and the elders descended after him.
Footnotes
59:1 All the books of the Bible [except the Pentateuch] are here designated: those read on the Sabbath are the Prophets; those not read, the Kethubim (Hagiographa).
59:2 Alive to their own interests.
59:3 They sell him at a low rate the articles of food which he abandoned, and they saved; thus they obtain a compensation, which they could not claim for assistance rendered on the Sabbath; and his loss is lessened.
59:4 Vide Treatise Erubin.
60:5 Because he caught, on the Sabbath-day, a scorpion, that did not actually threaten him.
Chapter XVI
CHAPTER XVI.
§ 1. When a woman, whose husband and rival had gone to a distant country, is acquainted that her husband was dead, she may neither marry [strangers] nor her brother-in-law by Yeboom until she has ascertained whether that rival was left pregnant, or not. But if she had a mother-in-law [abroad], she need not apprehend, 1 lest that mother-in-law might have brought forth a son, 2 but if her mother-in-law was pregnant at the time of her departure, she is bound to notice it. 3 But R. José declares it unnecessary.
§ 2. When both wives of two brothers say severally, "My husband is dead," neither may re-marry, because it is to be apprehended in respect to each of them, that the husband of the other may [possibly] be yet alive. If one has witnesses, and not the other, she who has witnesses may not re-marry, 4 but the other wife may. 5 If one has children, and not the other, she who has children may marry again, but not sire who has no children. When these women had married
two brothers by Yeboom, and these husbands also died, they may not re-marry, but R. Eleazar saith, "Having once been permitted to marry their brothers-in-law, this permission [to re-marry] extends to all men."
§ 3. The testimony of a witness [as to the identity of an alleged deceased married man], is only then valid, when he testifies that he recognised the physiognomy with the nose 6 of the deceased, although the witness mentioned other particular signs in the person or dress [of the deceased]. Testimony can only be received of one who had seen the deceased after he had actually given up the ghost, and is not admissible when the witness only saw him mortally wounded, or hanging, or that he was being devoured by a wild animal. The identity of the person can only be vouched for, when the witness saw him within three days after his decease, but R. Jehudah ben Baba observes, "This is not the same for all people, places, or seasons." 7
§ 4. If a man fell into the water, whether that was limited in extent, 8 or not, 9 his wife may not marry again. 10 R. Meir saith, "It happened once that a man fell into a large well, and after three days came up again alive." But R. Jose relates [to the contrary effect], that it once happened that a blind man went down in a cave to bathe, and his guide followed him, and when they had waited so long for their return till their death appeared certain, their wives were permitted to re-marry. It also happened in Asya [Asia Minor] that a man was fastened to a chain and cast into the sea, and on withdrawing the chain, his leg only was found; the sages then decided, that when the leg [of a person] is found separated from the body above the knee, his wife may marry again, 11 but not if the leg was found separated below the knee.
§ 5. Even if [a witness] had his information from women only, who, conversing with each other, said, "A.B. is dead," his evidence
is valid. R. Jehudah says, "Even when he heard children say to each other, 'We are going [home] from the burial and lamentation for A.B.'" It is immaterial whether the witness intended by that declaration to proffer it as testimony, or whether he did it without such intention. R. Jehudah ben Baba says, "An Israelite may tender his evidence even intentionally, but the evidence of a heathen is void when it is proved that he has some private purpose, or intention to serve [by his evidence.]"
§ 6. Evidence [of the death of a married man] is admissible even when the witness saw him only by candle or moonlight. A woman maybe permitted to re-marry, even if a voice in the air or echo 12 had only been heard, declaring that event. It once happened, that a man, on the top of a mountain, called out, "A.B., son of C.D., of the place E. is dead." They ascended the mountain without finding the person from whom the voice had proceeded, yet the wife [of A.B.] was permitted to marry again. Another case occurred in Tsal-mon,—a man exclaimed, "N. N., son of N. N., of the place N., has been bitten by a venomous serpent, and must die." When they came to the wounded man, [his features] could no longer be recognized, yet his wife was permitted to marry again.
§ 7. R. Akivah says, "When I went down to Neardeah to intercalate a month in the year, I met Nehemiah of Beth-delee, who told me, 'I heard that with the exception of R. Jehudah ben Baba, permission is refused in the Holy Land to a woman to re-marry upon the evidence of a single witness.' On my answering in the affirmative, he said, 'Tell them in my name you are aware that the tranquillity of this country is disturbed by armed hosts, [and therefore I cannot go to tender my personal evidence], but I have it in tradition from the elder Rabbon Gamaliel, that a woman may re-marry on the evidence of a single witness, or of that of a woman or slave.' When I returned and informed [the younger] Rabbon Gamaliel of this, he rejoiced and said, 'We have found a colleague for R. Jehudah ben Baba, [who agrees with him in this].' That circumstance reminded Rabbon Gamaliel [the younger], that once, when several men were killed at Tel Arzah, Rabbon Gamaliel, the elder, permitted their wives to re-marry on the evidence of a single witness, and to receive as valid evidence the testimony of a witness, whose knowledge of the fact is only derived from
the deposition he heard another witness make in this case, also, [to grant this permission to re-marry] on the evidence of a slave-woman, or female slave." R. Eleazar and R. Joshua are, however, of opinion, that the mentioned permission ought not to be granted to a woman to re-marry upon the evidence of a single witness. R. Akivah saith, "Neither upon that of a woman, a slave, a bond-woman, or of near relatives." But the sages said unto him, "It happened once, that when a family of Levites went to Zoar, the city of Palms, one [of the said Levites] fell ill on the road, and they brought him to an inn. When they returned, they asked the hostess, 'Where is our companion?'—She answered, 'He died, and I have had him buried': permission was thereupon granted the wife of the deceased to re-marry." They [the sages] said [moreover] to him, "Shall not the evidence of a woman of sacerdotal race be equally admissible as that of the [heathen] hostess of an inn?" but he replied, "The reason why credence was accorded to this hostess was, because she produced to them the staff of the deceased, his travelling-bag, and the roll of the law he carried with him."
Footnotes
237:1 To re-marry.
237:2 In which case she became subject to Yeboom, and could not marry any one else till she had performed Chalitzah to him.
237:3 That is, she must wait for positive information whether her mother-in-law brought forth a son before she can re-marry, or is bound to wait for Chalitzah or Yeboom.
237:4 Because the rule is that the evidence of one sister-in-law is not available in this matter to the other.
237:5 Because her own evidence suffices to prove the death of her own husband, and that of the brother-in-law is proved by the evidence of the witnesses.
238:6 Namely, that the nose had not been cut off, or was so mutilated, as to render the person irrecognizable.
238:7 Because the period and progress of putrefaction, which renders the features irrecognizable, varies greatly in respect to the habit of body of the subject, the heat or coldness of the climate, and of the season of the year.
238:8 Under this description arc to be understood ditches or ponds, or other sheets of water, of which all the sides or banks may he seen.
238:9 Such as the sea, large rivers, &c.
238:10 For he may, perhaps, have been saved, although he did not return to his wife.
238:11 For it is supposed, that a person so circumstanced cannot possibly survive.
239:12 In the original בת קול "a daughter," or production of the voice, i.e. an echo. In the present case it is supposed that the person from whom the voice proceeded had gone away after he made the announcement.