[MUSIC] In previous videos, we examined the first Mishnah about Edim Zomemim and the Talmud's discussion about material. In the next section of the Talmud, the passage cites a statement that looks like a Mishnah is related to the content of the Mishnah we have been considering, but is not found in the Mishnah. The text reads, The Rabbis taught four things were stated about Edim Zomemim. The introductory phrase, The Rabbis taught always indicates that the reader is about to see a statement attributed to Atana or several Tannaim that does not appear in the Mishnah. Any such statement is known as a Baraita, which in Aramaic means outside, since these are dicta that did not make it into the Mishnah, but remained outside. Because the definition of a Baraita is based on time period rather than genre, Baraitot the plural form of Baraita can take the form of a Mishnah and look like a statement of law or they can take the form of Midrash. In the case of the text we are currently examining, the Baraita takes the form of a Mishnah. Sometimes Baraitot that appear in one work of rabbinic literature are duplicated in exact or slightly different form in other extant works of rabbinic literature. For example, there are many Midrash style Baraitot that appear in the Talmud, that also appear in works of Midrash. There's also a Mishnah style work called Tosefta, that contains many of the Mishnah style Baraitot. These duplicate texts are referred to as parallels because they appear in parallel in another work of rabbinic literature. Sometimes, however, a Baraita in the Talmud is not found in parallel anywhere outside the Talmud. This can be a sign that the Baraita is not an authentically Tannaitic statement at all, but was fashioned by later rabbis in the style of the earlier source. Because the Baraita in our passage is not paralleled anywhere, and because its content fits our passage so well, it is possible that this is one example of a fabricated Baraita. Even if the Baraita in its present form is not an authentic second century source, much of its content is paralleled in second century sources. So the people who produced it, if it is not authentic, may have considered the production of such a source to be a productive form of editing rather than the deceptive way to claim authority by pretending to cite an earlier text. The Baraita lists four statements that were made about the laws of Edim Zomemim. The first two statements duplicate laws we've already encountered in the chapter's first Mishnah. 1, they are not made a son of a divorced woman or of a woman who was released from levirate marriage. 2, they are not exiled to the cities of refuge. The third law introduces new information. 3, they do not pay the fine. The finest Baraita references is related to Biblical laws about a goring ox. According to the Bible, if the owner of a known to be dangerous ox did not take due precautions and the ox killed someone, both the ox and its owner are to be put to death. And the owner of the ox must pay a fine. However, the Baraita states that if Edim Zomemim accused someone of owing a dangerous ox who killed someone, the Edim Zomemim do not have to pay the fine. And finally, four, they are not sold as a Hebrew slave. This statement refers to yet another Biblical law. As you may have deduced by now, the Talmud assumes that the reader is already familiar with the entire Bible and the whole corpus of rabbinic literature. According the this Biblical law, if a thief does not have enough money to make restitution for what he has stolen, he is sold into slavery. However, the Baraita states that we do not apply this contingency to Edim Zomemim. Thus, along with the cases of invalidating a priest in unintentional murder, the Baraita adds two more instances where Edim Zomemim do not receive the exact punishment that their victim would have received. Despite having committed in its opening to list just four things, the Baraita adds one last item. In the name of Rabbi Akiva they said, they do not even pay based on their own admission. This last statement, which, unlike the rest of the Baraita is paralleled in the Tosefta, means that if witnesses in the case of a potential financial penalty confessed their crime before being caught, they are not administered a financial penalty. Having cited this Tannaitic material, the Talmud then goes on to analyze it. This is the basic structure of a Talmudic literary unit known as a Sugya. The Talmud first quotes a statement from Tannaitic literature and subsequently provides discussion about the statement from both named and anonymous sources. In this way, the Talmud treats this Mishnah style Baraita exactly as it would treat a Mishnah by analyzing it line by line. They are not made a son of a divorced woman or of a woman who was released from the levirate marriage, as we stated previously. And they are not exiled to the cities of refuge as we stated previously. The Talmud notes as we did, that the first two items listed in the Baraita are continent with the statements that were already stated by the Mishnah and analyzed in earlier passage. Just as the earlier passages attempted to provide reasons for the first two items in the Baraita, the Talmud now tries to give a justification for the third item. They do not pay the fine. The author of the Baraita thought that the fine is for atonement and these are not people deserving of atonement. In other words, false witnesses do not get the benefit of the fine of the goring ox because they are not worthy of its atoning properties. Note the Talmud returned here to the idea of atonement and the question of whether or not false witnesses deserve it, which had come up in the Talmud's discussion of exile to the city of refuge. Though that repetition might make the idea of punishment as atonement seem original to this passage in the connection between the fine for a goring ox and atonement is probably not original to this passage. The idea of the fine as atonement is paralleled elsewhere in the Talmud as part of a more in depth discussion of the laws about goring oxen. And it is likely that the more extensive consideration of the issue there is being obliquely referenced here. By the way, the Aramaic word for fine, Qufra, is extremely similar to the Hebrew word for atonement, Qappara. So the question here may be linguistic as much as it is philosophical. The Talmud's anonymous voice now jumps on the idea of the fine as atonement, and tries to connect this with a specific rabbi. Who taught that the fine is for atonement? In other words, do we know of a Tanna, who thought that the fine is for atonement, and thus could have been the author of this Baraita? The Talmud likes to search for conceptual consistency and so will frequently suggest attributions for anonymous statements based on Rabbis' opinions that could be based on the same general legal attitude. Rav Chisda said it is Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka. The Talmud suggests in the name of Rav Chisda a third century Rabbi, that a second century Rabbi named Rabbi Yishmael may be the author of this Baraita based on a different position he took in another Baraita. As it is taught in a Baraita, and he shall give the value of his life, the value of the life of the victim. Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka said, the value of the life of the tortfeasor. Tortfeasor is a fancy word for the owner of the ox. Are they not arguing about the following, that one of them thinks the fine is for financial reparations and one thinks that it is for atonement? The Talmud here quotes an argument found elsewhere, about how the fine for the goring ox is assessed. The first anonymous opinion thinks that it is based on how much the victim's life is worth, but Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka thinks that it is based on how much the tortfeasor's life is worth. The Talmud suggests that this argument is based on a fundamental discrepancy about the purpose of the fine. Does the fine simply make reparations to the victim, or is it providing the tortfeasor with an opportunity to atone for his or her crime? According to Rav Chisda's suggestion, Rabbi Yishmael might have said that the fine should be assessed based on the perpetrator because it is ultimately for his own atonement. Thus, he could also have been the Tanna who taught the opinion expressed in our Baraita that Edim Zomemim do not pay the fine. Rav Pappa said no, for everyone agrees that the fine is for atonement and in this case, they are arguing about the following. One of them thinks we calculate it based on the value of the life of the victim, and one thinks we calculate it based on the value of the life of the tortfeasor. However, this suggestion is rejected by Rav Pappa, a fourth century rabbi who claims that Rabbi Yishmael and his opponent agree that the fine is for the purpose of atonement. And they merely argue about the rubric for calculating the amount of the fine. Thus, the statement in our Baraita can not be definitively attributed to Rabbi Yishmael since he was is the only person who believes that the fine is for atonement. As in so many other discussions in the Talmud, the question of the authorship of this statement in the Baraita is left unresolved. In the next video, we will come back to this Baraita and see how the Talmud handles its final two cases, the sale of a thief into slavery and the case in which the witnesses confess about a financial penalty. [MUSIC]
