Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 29, 2017 | ื–ืณ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sanhedrin 43

The one who is taken out to be stoned is asked to confess. ย The importance of confession is learned from Achan. ย  The story of Achan is analyzed and verses are extrapolated to teach various halachot as well as moral messages. ย To what extent are the Jewish people responsible for others? ย  Can children be killed for the sins of their parents? ย Is it OK for Yehoshua to complain to God when 36 people were killed in the battle of Ai? ย Are angels allowed to complain to God? ย What role do angels play in our prayers? ย Are we allowed to pray to angels?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืฉื• ื›ืืฉืจ ืฆื•ื” ื”ืณ ืืช ืžืฉื”

โ€œAnd the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.โ€

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื•ื™ืจื’ืžื• ืืชื• ืื‘ืŸ ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืณื•ื™ืจื’ืžื• ืืชื• ื‘ืื‘ืŸืณ ืณืืชื•ืณ ื•ืœื ื‘ื›ืกื•ืชื• ืณืื‘ืŸืณ ืฉืื ืžืช ื‘ืื‘ืŸ ืื—ืช ื™ืฆื

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what do they do with the words in the verse: โ€œAnd they stoned him with a stoneโ€? These words appear to be superfluous, as even without them we would know that Godโ€™s instructions to stone the blasphemer were implemented. What then do they serve to teach? The Gemara answers: That phrase is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd they stoned him with a stone.โ€ The word โ€œhimโ€ teaches that they stoned him alone, while he was naked, but not while he was in his clothing. The verse uses the singular term โ€œstone [aven]โ€ rather than the plural term stones [avanim] to teach that if the condemned man died after being struck with one stone, the court has fulfilled its obligation.

ื•ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื™ื›ืชื‘ ืื‘ืŸ ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื™ื›ืชื‘ ืื‘ื ื™ื ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื‘ืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืžืช ื‘ื—ื“ื ืœื ื ื™ืชื™ ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ื•ืžืงื˜ืœื™ื” ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื‘ื ื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืชืจืชื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื‘ืŸ

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to write with regard to the blasphemer that โ€œthey stoned him with a stone,โ€ in the singular, and it was necessary to write with regard to the man who gathered sticks on Shabbat that โ€œthey stoned him with stonesโ€ (Numbers 15:36), in the plural. As, had the Merciful One written only โ€œstone,โ€ I would say that where the condemned man did not die after being struck with one stone, they do not bring other stones and kill him with them. Therefore, the Merciful One writes โ€œstones.โ€ And had the Merciful One written only โ€œstones,โ€ I would say that from the outset they should bring two or more stones. Therefore, the Merciful One writes โ€œstone.โ€

ื•ื”ื ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื ืืžืจ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ืœื• ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืงืืžืจ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ืœื• ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืขื›ืฉื™ื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืœื ืฆืจื™ืš

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappaโ€™s derivation: But this tanna of the baraita cited above said: It is stated here and it is stated elsewhere, thereby basing his derivation on a verbal analogy between the verse concerning the blasphemer and the verse concerning the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned. How, then, can Rav Pappa, an amora, disagree and derive the halakha directly from the verse dealing with the blasphemer? The Gemara answers: According to Rav Pappa, the tanna of the baraita said: Had it not been stated, and this is what he is saying: Had a verse not been stated from which it can be directly derived that the condemned man is stoned outside all three camps, I would have said that this can be learned by way of a verbal analogy. But now that such a verse has been stated, the verbal analogy is not needed.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืžืฉื” ื”ื™ื›ื ื”ื•ื” ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืžื—ื ื” ืœื•ื™ื™ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื•ืฆื ืืช ื”ืžืงืœืœ ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืžื—ื ื” ืœื•ื™ื™ื” ืืœ ืžื—ื•ืฅ ืœืžื—ื ื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืžื—ื ื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื™ื•ืฆื™ืื• ืืช ื”ืžืงืœืœ ืœืขืฉื™ื™ื”

Rav Ashi said: The location of the place of stoning can be directly derived from the verse discussing the blasphemer but in a slightly different manner. Where was Moses sitting when the matter of the blasphemer was brought before him? In the Levite camp. And the Merciful One said to him: โ€œTake out him who has cursedโ€ (Leviticus 24:14), indicating that he should be taken outside the Levite camp into the Israelite camp. And God continued in that verse: โ€œOutside the camp,โ€ which is an additional command that he should be removed even further, to outside the Israelite camp. And the later verse, which says: โ€œAnd they brought him that had cursed out of the campโ€ฆand the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Mosesโ€ (Leviticus 24:23), teaches us about the implementation of Godโ€™s instructions, i.e., that the children of Israel did in fact carry out His command.

ืขืฉื™ื™ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืฉื• ื›ืืฉืจ ืฆื•ื” ื”ืณ ืืช ืžืฉื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื—ื“ ืœืกืžื™ื›ื” ื•ื—ื“ ืœื“ื—ื™ื™ื”

The Gemara raises an objection: The implementation of Godโ€™s instructions is written explicitly in this context, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: โ€œAnd the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.โ€ The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to teach us that not only was the condemned man taken outside the three camps and stoned, but the rest of Godโ€™s instructions were also fulfilled. These instructions relate to the placing of the witnessesโ€™ hands upon the head of the condemned man, as it is stated: โ€œAnd let all that heard him place their hands upon his headโ€ (Leviticus 24:14), and to the witnessesโ€™ pushing of the condemned man from a platform the height of two stories.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœื“ื™ื“ืš ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ื”ื•ืฆื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืคืจื™ื ื”ื ืฉืจืคื™ื ืžืื™ ื“ืจืฉืช ื‘ื”ื• ืงืฉื™ื

The Sages said to Rav Ashi: According to you, that the expression โ€œtake outโ€ by itself means outside the camp, and โ€œoutside the campโ€ means outside an additional camp, what do you learn from all those instances of โ€œtake outโ€ that are written with regard to the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned? According to your explanation, there are many superfluous phrases in the verses. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is difficult with regard to the opinion of Rav Ashi.

ืื—ื“ ืขื•ืžื“ ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ืื‘ืŸ ืฉื ืกืงืœ ื‘ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืขืฅ ืฉื ืชืœื” ื‘ื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืกื™ื™ืฃ ืฉื ื”ืจื’ ื‘ื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืกื•ื“ืจ ืฉื ื—ื ืง ื‘ื• ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืžืฉืœ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืžื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ื•ืœื™ืชื™ื” ื•ืœื™ืงื˜ื•ืœ ื ืคืฉื™ื”

ยง The mishna teaches that one man stands at the entrance to the court, with cloths in his hand, ready to signal to the court agents leading the condemned man to his execution that some doubt has been raised with respect to the latterโ€™s guilt. Rav Huna says: It is obvious to me that the stone with which the condemned man is stoned and the tree on which his corpse is hung after his execution, or the sword with which he is killed, or the scarf with which he is strangled, all of these come from the property of the community. What is the reason for this? We do not tell the condemned man to go and bring these items from his own property and effectively kill himself.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืกื•ื“ืจ ืฉืžื ื™ืคื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ืกื•ืก ืฉืจืฅ ื•ืžืขืžื™ื“ืŸ ืžืฉืœ ืžื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื”ืฆืœื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืžืขื‘ื“ ื‘ื” ื”ืฆืœื” ืžื“ื™ื“ื”ื•

Rav Huna raised a dilemma: With regard to the cloth that is waved and the horse that races off after the court agents to stop the latter from carrying out the execution, from whose property do they come, that of the condemned man or that of the community? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Since they are needed to save the man being led to his execution, these items should be taken from his property. Or perhaps, since the court is obligated to take all possible measures to save him from death, they should be taken from them, i.e., the community.

ื•ืชื• ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืœื™ื”ืจื’ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืงื•ืจื˜ ืฉืœ ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื‘ื›ื•ืก ืฉืœ ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืชื˜ืจืฃ ื“ืขืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ืชื ื• ืฉื›ืจ ืœืื•ื‘ื“ ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืžืจื™ ื ืคืฉ ื•ืชื ื™ื ื ืฉื™ื ื™ืงืจื•ืช ืฉื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื”ื™ื• ืžืชื ื“ื‘ื•ืช ื•ืžื‘ื™ืื•ืช ืื•ืชืŸ ืœื ื”ืชื ื“ื‘ื• ื ืฉื™ื ื™ืงืจื•ืช ืžืฉืœ ืžื™ ื”ื ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžืฉืœ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชื ื• ืžื“ื™ื“ื”ื•

And furthermore, another question is raised along similar lines: With regard to that which Rav แธคiyya bar Ashi says that Rav แธคisda says: The court gives one who is being led out to be killed a grain [koret] of frankincense in a cup of wine in order to confuse his mind and thereby minimize his suffering from the fear of his impending death, as it is stated: โ€œGive strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soulโ€ (Proverbs 31:6). And it is taught in a baraita: The prominent women of Jerusalem would donate this drink and bring it to those being led out to be killed. The question is: If these prominent women did not donate this drink, from whom is it taken? The Gemara answers: With regard to this question, it is certainly reasonable that this drink should be taken from the community, as it is written: โ€œGive [tenu] strong drink,โ€ in the plural, indicating that it should come from them, the community.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ื ื ืžืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžืจ ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ื™ืฉ ืœื™ ืœืœืžื“ ืขืœื™ื• ื–ื›ื•ืช ื•ื ืฉืชืชืง ืžื”ื• ืžื ืคื— ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ื ืฉืชืชืง ืืคื™ืœื• ืื—ื“ ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืขื•ืœื ื ืžื™ ื”ืชื ืœื ืงืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ืงืืžืจ ืžืื™

ยง Rav Aแธฅa bar Huna asked Rav Sheshet: If one of the students sitting before the judges said: I can teach a reason to acquit him, and he became mute and cannot explain himself, what is the halakha in such a case? Does the court take heed of his words, or do they disregard him? Rav Sheshet waved his hands in scorn and said: If the student became mute, the court certainly does not pay attention to him, as were the court to concern themselves with what he said, they would have to be concerned even that perhaps there is someone at the end of the world who can propose an argument in the condemned manโ€™s favor. The Gemara rejects this argument: The cases are not similar. There, no one said that he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. Here, the student already said that he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. The question, therefore, is appropriate. What is the halakha in such a case?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ืฉื–ื™ื›ื” ื•ืžืช ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื—ื™ ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื• ื–ื™ื›ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื–ื™ื›ื” ืœื

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer: As Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina says: In a case where there was one of the students who argued to acquit the defendant and then died, the court views him as if he were alive and standing in his place and voting to acquit the defendant. The implication is that if he argued to acquit the defendant and explained his reasoning, yes, the court counts his vote as if he were still alive. But if he did not actually argue to acquit the defendant, but only said that he wished to propose such an argument, his vote is not counted as though he were still alive.

ื–ื™ื›ื” ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš

The Gemara rejects this proof: If the student argued to acquit the defendant, it is obvious to me that he should be counted among those favoring acquittal. But if he only says that he wishes to propose such an argument, let the dilemma be raised whether or not he should be regarded as having presented a convincing argument in favor of acquittal. The question is left unresolved.

ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืคืขื ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืคืขื ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฉ ืžืžืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืžืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืžื—ื–ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืื™ืœืš ืื ื™ืฉ ืžืžืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืžื—ื–ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืžืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื•

The mishna teaches: And even if he, the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words. The Gemara asks: And is the halakha that there must be substance to his words even the first and second time that the condemned man says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: The first and second times that he says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself, they return him to the courthouse and consider whether there is substance to his statement or there is no substance to his statement. From this point forward, if there is substance to his statement they return him to the courthouse, but if there is no substance to his statement, they do not return him. This appears to contradict the mishna.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืชืจื’ื•ืžื” ืžืคืขื ืฉื ื™ื” ื•ืื™ืœืš

Rav Pappa said: Explain that the mishnaโ€™s ruling applies only from after the second time forward, that from that point on we examine whether there is substance to his words.

ืžื ื ื™ื“ืขื™ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืžืกืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื–ื•ื’ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžืžืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ืื™ ืœื ืœื

The Gemara asks: How do we know whether or not there is substance to his words? Abaye said: If the condemned man has already been returned twice to the courthouse, we send a pair of rabbis with him to evaluate his claim. If they find that there is substance to his statement, yes, he is returned once again to the courthouse; if not, he is not returned.

ื•ืœื™ืžืกืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืื’ื‘ ื“ื‘ืขื™ืช ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืžืื™ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: But why not send a pair of rabbis with him from the outset, even the first time, and have them make an initial assessment of his claim? The Gemara answers: Since a man facing execution is frightened by the thought of his impending death, he is not able to say all that he has to say, and perhaps out of fear he will be confused and not provide a substantial reason to overturn his verdict. Therefore, the first two times he is returned to the courthouse without an initial examination of his arguments. Once he has already been returned on two occasions, the court allows for no further delay, and they send two rabbis to evaluate his claim before returning him a third time.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืฆืื• ืœื• ื–ื›ื•ืช ืคื˜ืจื•ื”ื• ื•ืื ืœืื• ื™ืฆื ืœื™ืกืงืœ ื•ื›ืจื•ื– ื™ื•ืฆื ืœืคื ื™ื• ืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื‘ืŸ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื™ื•ืฆื ืœื™ืกืงืœ ืขืœ ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืขื“ื™ื• ื›ืœ ืžื™ ืฉื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื• ื–ื›ื•ืช ื™ื‘ื ื•ื™ืœืžื“ ืขืœื™ื•

MISHNA: If, after the condemned man is returned to the courthouse, the judges find a reason to acquit him, they acquit him and release him immediately. But if they do not find a reason to acquit him, he goes out to be stoned. And a crier goes out before him and publicly proclaims: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going out to be stoned because he committed such and such a transgression. And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ื‘ืฉืขื” ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืื™ื›ื ื“ื™ื“ืขื™ ื•ืืชื• ื•ืžื–ื™ื ืœื”ื•

GEMARA: Abaye says: And the crier must also publicly proclaim that the transgression was committed on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, and at such and such a place, as perhaps there are those who know that the witnesses could not have been in that place at that time, and they will come forward and render the witnesses conspiring witnesses.

ื•ื›ืจื•ื– ื™ื•ืฆื ืœืคื ื™ื• ืœืคื ื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืขืจื‘ ื”ืคืกื— ืชืœืื•ื”ื• ืœื™ืฉื• ื”ื ื•ืฆืจื™ ื•ื”ื›ืจื•ื– ื™ื•ืฆื ืœืคื ื™ื• ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื•ื ืณื™ืฉื• ื”ื ื•ืฆืจื™ ื™ื•ืฆื ืœื™ืกืงืœ ืขืœ ืฉื›ื™ืฉืฃ ื•ื”ืกื™ืช ื•ื”ื“ื™ื— ืืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื›ืœ ืžื™ ืฉื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื• ื–ื›ื•ืช ื™ื‘ื•ื ื•ื™ืœืžื“ ืขืœื™ื•ืณ ื•ืœื ืžืฆืื• ืœื• ื–ื›ื•ืช ื•ืชืœืื•ื”ื• ื‘ืขืจื‘ ื”ืคืกื—

The mishna teaches that a crier goes out before the condemned man. This indicates that it is only before him, i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that yes, the crier goes out, but from the outset, before the accused is convicted, he does not go out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve.

ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ื•ืชืกื‘ืจื ื™ืฉื• ื”ื ื•ืฆืจื™ ื‘ืจ ื”ืคื•ื›ื™ ื–ื›ื•ืช ื”ื•ื ืžืกื™ืช ื”ื•ื ื•ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ืœื ืชื—ืžืœ ื•ืœื ืชื›ืกื” ืขืœื™ื• ืืœื ืฉืื ื™ ื™ืฉื• ื“ืงืจื•ื‘ ืœืžืœื›ื•ืช ื”ื•ื”

Ulla said: And how can you understand this proof? Was Jesus the Nazarene worthy of conducting a search for a reason to acquit him? He was an inciter to idol worship, and the Merciful One states with regard to an inciter to idol worship: โ€œNeither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal himโ€ (Deuteronomy 13:9). Rather, Jesus was different, as he had close ties with the government, and the gentile authorities were interested in his acquittal. Consequently, the court gave him every opportunity to clear himself, so that it could not be claimed that he was falsely convicted.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื—ืžืฉื” ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืœื™ืฉื• ื”ื ื•ืฆืจื™ ืžืชืื™ ื ืงืื™ ื ืฆืจ ื•ื‘ื•ื ื™ ื•ืชื•ื“ื” ืืชื™ื•ื” ืœืžืชื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืณืžืชื™ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืชื™ ืื‘ื•ื ื•ืืจืื” ืคื ื™ ืืœื”ื™ืืณ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืณืื™ืŸ ืžืชื™ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืชื™ ื™ืžื•ืช ื•ืื‘ื“ ืฉืžื•ืณ

Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another baraita, where the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai in to stand trial. Mattai said to the judges: Shall Mattai be executed? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œWhen [matai] shall I come and appear before God?โ€ (Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. They said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: โ€œWhen [matai] shall he die, and his name perish?โ€ (Psalms 41:6).

ืืชื™ื•ื” ืœื ืงืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืณื ืงืื™ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืงื™ ื•ืฆื“ื™ืง ืืœ ืชื”ืจื’ืณ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืณืื™ืŸ ื ืงืื™ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืกืชืจื™ื ื™ื”ืจื’ ื ืงื™ืณ

Then they brought Nakai in to stand trial. Nakai said to the judges: Shall Nakai be executed? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd the innocent [naki] and righteous you shall not slayโ€ (Exodus 23:7)? They said to him: Yes, Nakai shall be executed, as it is written: โ€œIn secret places he kills the innocent [naki]โ€ (Psalms 10:8).

ืืชื™ื•ื” ืœื ืฆืจ ืืžืจ ืณื ืฆืจ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืฆืจ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื• ื™ืคืจื”ืณ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืณืื™ืŸ ื ืฆืจ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืชื” ื”ืฉืœื›ืช ืžืงื‘ืจืš ื›ื ืฆืจ ื ืชืขื‘ืณ

Then they brought Netzer in to stand trial. He said to the judges: Shall Netzer be executed? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd a branch [netzer] shall grow out of his rootsโ€ (Isaiah 11:1)? They said to him: Yes, Netzer shall be executed, as it is written: โ€œBut you are cast out of your grave like an abhorred branch [netzer]โ€ (Isaiah 14:19).

ืืชื™ื•ื” ืœื‘ื•ื ื™ ืืžืจ ืณื‘ื•ื ื™ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื›ืจื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœืณ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืณืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ื ื™ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื ื” ืื ื›ื™ ื”ื•ืจื’ ืืช ื‘ื ืš ื‘ื›ืจืšืณ

Then they brought Buni in to stand trial. Buni said to the judges: Shall Buni be executed? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œMy firstborn son [beni] is Israelโ€ (Exodus 4:22)? They said to him: Yes, Buni shall be executed, as it is written: โ€œBehold, I shall kill your firstborn son [binkha]โ€ (Exodus 4:23).

ืืชื™ื•ื” ืœืชื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืณืชื•ื“ื” ื™ื”ืจื’ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื–ืžื•ืจ ืœืชื•ื“ื”ืณ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืณืื™ืŸ ืชื•ื“ื” ื™ื”ืจื’ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ื‘ื— ืชื•ื“ื” ื™ื›ื‘ื“ื ื ื™ืณ

Then they brought Toda in to stand trial. Toda said to the judges: Shall Toda be executed? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œA psalm of thanksgiving [toda]โ€ (Psalms 100:1)? They said to him: Yes, Toda shall be executed, as it is written: โ€œWhoever slaughters a thanks-offering [toda] honors Meโ€ (Psalms 50:23).

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืืช ื™ืฆืจื• ื•ืžืชื•ื“ื” ืขืœื™ื• ืžืขืœื” ืขืœื™ื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื›ืื™ืœื• ื›ื™ื‘ื“ื• ืœื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ื”ืขื•ืœื ื”ื–ื” ื•ื”ืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ื‘ื— ืชื•ื“ื” ื™ื›ื‘ื“ื ื ื™

ยง Apropos the last verse cited in this baraita, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to anyone who slaughters his evil inclination after it has tempted him to sin, if he repents and confesses his sin, the verse ascribes him credit as though he had honored the Holy One, Blessed be He, in two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come, as it is written: โ€œWhoever slaughters a thanks-offering [toda] honors Me [yekhabdaneni]โ€ (Psalms 50:23), which can also be read as: Whoever slaughters his evil inclination and confesses [mitvadeh] honors Me, and the two instances of the letter nun in the word yekhabdaneni allude to the two worlds.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ืงื™ื™ื ืื“ื ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืขื•ืœื” ืฉื›ืจ ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืžื ื—ื” ืฉื›ืจ ืžื ื—ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืื‘ืœ ืžื™ ืฉื“ืขืชื• ืฉืคืœื” ืžืขืœื” ืขืœื™ื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืืœื”ื™ื ืจื•ื— ื ืฉื‘ืจื” ื•ืœื ืขื•ื“ ืืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืชืคืœืชื• ื ืžืืกืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื‘ ื ืฉื‘ืจ ื•ื ื“ื›ื” ืืœื”ื™ื ืœื ืชื‘ื–ื”

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also says: When the Temple is standing, if a person sacrifices a burnt-offering, he has the reward given for bringing a burnt-offering, and if he sacrifices a meal-offering, he has the reward given for bringing a meal-offering. But as for one whose spirit is humble, the verse ascribes him credit for his prayer as though he has sacrificed all the offerings, as it is stated: โ€œThe offerings of God are a broken spiritโ€ (Psalms 51:19), which teaches that a broken spirit is equivalent to the offerings to God, in the plural. And moreover, his prayer is not rejected, as it is stated in the continuation of that verse: โ€œA broken and contrite heart, God, You will not despise.โ€

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื™ื” ืจื—ื•ืง ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืกืงื™ืœื” ื›ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ื”ืชื•ื“ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื›ืœ ื”ืžื•ืžืชื™ืŸ ืžืชื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืœ ื”ืžืชื•ื“ื” ื™ืฉ ืœื• ื—ืœืง ืœืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ืขื›ืŸ ืฉืืžืจ ืœื• ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื ื™ ืฉื™ื ื ื ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืœื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ื™ืขืŸ ืขื›ืŸ ืืช ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืžื ื” ืื ื›ื™ ื—ื˜ืืชื™ ื•ื›ื–ืืช ื•ื›ื–ืืช ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉื›ื™ืคืจ ืœื• ื•ื™ื“ื•ื™ื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืžื” ืขื›ืจืชื ื• ื™ืขื›ืจืš ื”ืณ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื–ื” ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื–ื” ืืชื” ืขื›ื•ืจ ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ืขื›ื•ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื

MISHNA: When the condemned man is at a distance of about ten cubits from the place of stoning, they say to him: Confess your transgressions, as the way of all who are being executed is to confess. As whoever confesses and regrets his transgressions has a portion in the World-to-Come. For so we find with regard to Achan, that Joshua said to him: โ€œMy son, please give glory to the Lord, God of Israel, and make confession to Himโ€ (Joshua 7:19). And the next verse states: โ€œAnd Achan answered Joshua, and said: Indeed I have sinned against the Lord, God of Israel, and like this and like that have I done.โ€ And from where is it derived that Achanโ€™s confession achieved atonement for him? It is derived from here, as it is stated: โ€œAnd Joshua said: Why have you brought trouble on us? The Lord shall trouble you this dayโ€ (Joshua 7:25). Joshua said to Achan as follows: On this day of your judgment you are troubled, but you will not be troubled in the World-to-Come.

ื•ืื ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื”ืชื•ื•ื“ื•ืช ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ืืžื•ืจ ืชื”ื ืžื™ืชืชื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืขื•ื ื•ืชื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื–ื•ืžื ืื•ืžืจ ืชื”ื ืžื™ืชืชื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืขื•ื ื•ืชื™ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืขื•ืŸ ื–ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื ื›ืŸ ื™ื”ื• ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืŸ ื›ื“ื™ ืœื ืงื•ืช ืขืฆืžื•

And if the condemned man does not know how to confess, either from ignorance or out of confusion, they say to him: Say simply: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the condemned man knows that he was convicted by the testimony of conspiring witnesses, but in fact he is innocent, he says: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins except for this sin. The Sages who disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda said to him: If so, every person who is being executed will say that, to clear himself in the eyes of the public. Therefore, if the condemned man does not make such a statement on his own, the court does not suggest it to him as an alternative.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืณื ืืณ ืื™ืŸ ืณื ืืณ ืืœื ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ืงืฉื”

GEMARA: Since the mishna referred to Achanโ€™s sin, the Gemara cites several statements concerning that incident. The Sages taught in a baraita: Joshua said to Achan: โ€œPlease [na] give glory to the Lord, God of Israel, and make confession to Him.โ€ The word โ€œnaโ€ is nothing other than an expression of supplication. Why would Joshua employ an expression of supplication when approaching Achan?

ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืœื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืณื—ื˜ื ื™ืฉืจืืœืณ ืืžืจ ืœืคื ื™ื• ืณืจื‘ื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืขื•ืœื ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืณื•ื›ื™ ื“ื™ืœื˜ื•ืจ ืื ื™ ืœืš ื”ืคืœ ื’ื•ืจืœื•ืชืณ ื”ืœืš ื•ื”ืคื™ืœ ื’ื•ืจืœื•ืช ื•ื ืคืœ ื”ื’ื•ืจืœ ืขืœ ืขื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืณื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื’ื•ืจืœ ืืชื” ื‘ื ืขืœื™ ืืชื” ื•ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ ื”ื“ื•ืจ ืืชื ืื ืื ื™ ืžืคื™ืœ ืขืœื™ื›ื ื’ื•ืจืœ ืขืœ ืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืคืœืณ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืณื‘ื‘ืงืฉื” ืžืžืš ืืœ ืชื•ืฆื™ื ืœืขื– ืขืœ ื”ื’ื•ืจืœื•ืช ืฉืขืชื™ื“ื” ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืชืชื—ืœืง ื‘ื’ื•ืจืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืืš ื‘ื’ื•ืจืœ ื™ื—ืœืง ืืช ื”ืืจืฅืณ

The baraita explains: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: โ€œIsrael has sinnedโ€ (Joshua 7:11), Joshua said to Him: Master of the Universe, who is the one who has sinned? God said to him: Am I an informer [deilator]? Go cast lots and find out for yourself. Joshua then went and cast lots, and the lot fell upon Achan. Achan said to him: Joshua, do you come to execute me merely based on a lot, without any corroborating evidence? You and Elazar the priest are the two most distinguished leaders of the generation, but if I cast a lot upon the two of you, it will perforce fall upon one of you. What then can you prove from a lottery? Joshua said to him: I ask of you, do not spread slander about the lots, as Eretz Yisrael will one day be divided by lots, as it is stated: โ€œNevertheless, the land shall be divided by lotโ€ (Numbers 26:55). Due to you the results of that lottery may be challenged. Therefore, Joshua used the word โ€œna,โ€ pleading with Achan to confess.

ืชืŸ ืชื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืฉื—ื•ื“ื™ ืฉื—ื“ื™ื” ื‘ืžื™ืœื™ ื›ืœื•ื ื ื‘ืงืฉ ืžืžืš ืืœื ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืชืŸ ืœื• ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ื”ื™ืคื˜ืจ ืžื™ื“ ื•ื™ืขืŸ ืขื›ืŸ ืืช ื™ื”ืฉืข ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืžื ื” ืื ื›ื™ ื—ื˜ืืชื™ ืœื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื›ื–ืืช ื•ื›ื–ืืช ืขืฉื™ืชื™

Joshua said to Achan: โ€œPlease give glory to the Lord, God of Israel, and make confession to Him.โ€ Ravina says: Joshua won over Achan with his words, saying: Do we ask anything of you but a confession? Make confession to Him and be discharged. Thinking that if he confessed, he would be pardoned, Achan immediately responded: โ€œAnd Achan answered Joshua, and said: Indeed I have sinned against the Lord, God of Israel, and like this and like that have I doneโ€ (Joshua 7:20).

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืžืขืœ ืขื›ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื—ืจืžื™ื ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืžืฉื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ืžื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื–ืืช ื•ื›ื–ืืช ืขืฉื™ืชื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื—ืžืฉื” ืืจื‘ืขื” ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืžืฉื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ืžื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉื ืืžืจ ืื ื›ื™ ื—ื˜ืืชื™ ื•ื›ื–ืืช ื•ื›ื–ืืช ืขืฉื™ืชื™

With regard to the words โ€œAnd like this and like that have I done,โ€ Rav Asi says that Rabbi แธคanina says: This teaches that Achan misused consecrated property from three dedications, i.e., three groups of property that had been dedicated to the Lord. Two were during wars waged in the days of Moses, and one was in the days of Joshua, as it is stated: โ€œAnd like this and like that have I done,โ€ indicating that he had already committed similar offenses twice before committing the offense in Jericho. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Achan misused property from five dedications, four during wars waged in the days of Moses, and one in the days of Joshua, as it is stated: โ€œI have sinned against the Lord, God of Israel, and like this and like that have I done,โ€ with each โ€œandโ€ alluding to an additional prior offense.

ื•ืขื“ ื”ืฉืชื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืื™ืขื ื•ืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœืคื™ ืฉืœื ืขื ืฉ ืขืœ ื”ื ืกืชืจื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉืขื‘ืจื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืช ื”ื™ืจื“ืŸ

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason that the Jewish people were not punished on Achanโ€™s account until now? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Because God did not punish the nation as a whole for hidden sins committed by individuals until the Jewish people crossed the Jordan River.

ื›ืชื ืื™ ืณื”ื ืกืชืจืช ืœื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื ื• ื•ื”ื ื’ืœืช ืœื ื• ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ื ื• ืขื“ ืขื•ืœืืณ ืœืžื” ื ืงื•ื“ ืขืœ ืณืœื ื• ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืณ ื•ืขืœ ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืณืขื“ืณ ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืœื ืขื ืฉ ืขืœ ื”ื ืกืชืจื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉืขื‘ืจื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืช ื”ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Gemara notes that this is subject to a dispute between tannaโ€™im. The verse states: โ€œThe hidden matters belong to the Lord our God, but those matters that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever [ad olam], that we may do all the words of this Torahโ€ (Deuteronomy 29:28). Why in a Torah scroll are there dots over each of the letters in the words โ€œto us and to our childrenโ€ and over the letter ayin in the word โ€œforever [ad]โ€? The dots, which function like erasures that weaken the force of the words, teach that God did not punish the nation for hidden sins until the Jewish people crossed the Jordan River. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืขื ืฉ ืขืœ ื”ื ืกืชืจื•ืช ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ื”ืœื ื›ื‘ืจ ื ืืžืจ ืณืขื“ ืขื•ืœืืณ ืืœื ื›ืฉื ืฉืœื ืขื ืฉ ืขืœ ื”ื ืกืชืจื•ืช ื›ืš ืœื ืขื ืฉ ืขืœ ืขื•ื ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ื’ืœื•ื™ ืขื“ ืฉืขื‘ืจื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืช ื”ื™ืจื“ืŸ ืืœื

Rabbi Neแธฅemya said to him: And does God ever punish the nation as a whole for hidden sins committed by individuals? But isnโ€™t it already stated: โ€œThe hidden matters belong to the Lord our Godโ€ฆforever,โ€ indicating that the Jewish people will never be collectively held responsible for the secret sins of individuals? Rather, the dots over the words teach that just as God did not ever punish the nation as a whole for hidden sins committed by individuals, so too, He did not punish the entire nation for sins committed publicly by individuals until the Jewish people crossed the Jordan River. The Gemara asks: But if so,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 43

ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืฉื• ื›ืืฉืจ ืฆื•ื” ื”ืณ ืืช ืžืฉื”

โ€œAnd the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.โ€

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื•ื™ืจื’ืžื• ืืชื• ืื‘ืŸ ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืณื•ื™ืจื’ืžื• ืืชื• ื‘ืื‘ืŸืณ ืณืืชื•ืณ ื•ืœื ื‘ื›ืกื•ืชื• ืณืื‘ืŸืณ ืฉืื ืžืช ื‘ืื‘ืŸ ืื—ืช ื™ืฆื

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what do they do with the words in the verse: โ€œAnd they stoned him with a stoneโ€? These words appear to be superfluous, as even without them we would know that Godโ€™s instructions to stone the blasphemer were implemented. What then do they serve to teach? The Gemara answers: That phrase is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd they stoned him with a stone.โ€ The word โ€œhimโ€ teaches that they stoned him alone, while he was naked, but not while he was in his clothing. The verse uses the singular term โ€œstone [aven]โ€ rather than the plural term stones [avanim] to teach that if the condemned man died after being struck with one stone, the court has fulfilled its obligation.

ื•ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื™ื›ืชื‘ ืื‘ืŸ ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื™ื›ืชื‘ ืื‘ื ื™ื ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื‘ืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืžืช ื‘ื—ื“ื ืœื ื ื™ืชื™ ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ื•ืžืงื˜ืœื™ื” ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื‘ื ื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืชืจืชื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื‘ืŸ

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to write with regard to the blasphemer that โ€œthey stoned him with a stone,โ€ in the singular, and it was necessary to write with regard to the man who gathered sticks on Shabbat that โ€œthey stoned him with stonesโ€ (Numbers 15:36), in the plural. As, had the Merciful One written only โ€œstone,โ€ I would say that where the condemned man did not die after being struck with one stone, they do not bring other stones and kill him with them. Therefore, the Merciful One writes โ€œstones.โ€ And had the Merciful One written only โ€œstones,โ€ I would say that from the outset they should bring two or more stones. Therefore, the Merciful One writes โ€œstone.โ€

ื•ื”ื ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื ืืžืจ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ืœื• ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืงืืžืจ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ืœื• ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืขื›ืฉื™ื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืœื ืฆืจื™ืš

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappaโ€™s derivation: But this tanna of the baraita cited above said: It is stated here and it is stated elsewhere, thereby basing his derivation on a verbal analogy between the verse concerning the blasphemer and the verse concerning the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned. How, then, can Rav Pappa, an amora, disagree and derive the halakha directly from the verse dealing with the blasphemer? The Gemara answers: According to Rav Pappa, the tanna of the baraita said: Had it not been stated, and this is what he is saying: Had a verse not been stated from which it can be directly derived that the condemned man is stoned outside all three camps, I would have said that this can be learned by way of a verbal analogy. But now that such a verse has been stated, the verbal analogy is not needed.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืžืฉื” ื”ื™ื›ื ื”ื•ื” ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืžื—ื ื” ืœื•ื™ื™ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื•ืฆื ืืช ื”ืžืงืœืœ ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืžื—ื ื” ืœื•ื™ื™ื” ืืœ ืžื—ื•ืฅ ืœืžื—ื ื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืžื—ื ื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื™ื•ืฆื™ืื• ืืช ื”ืžืงืœืœ ืœืขืฉื™ื™ื”

Rav Ashi said: The location of the place of stoning can be directly derived from the verse discussing the blasphemer but in a slightly different manner. Where was Moses sitting when the matter of the blasphemer was brought before him? In the Levite camp. And the Merciful One said to him: โ€œTake out him who has cursedโ€ (Leviticus 24:14), indicating that he should be taken outside the Levite camp into the Israelite camp. And God continued in that verse: โ€œOutside the camp,โ€ which is an additional command that he should be removed even further, to outside the Israelite camp. And the later verse, which says: โ€œAnd they brought him that had cursed out of the campโ€ฆand the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Mosesโ€ (Leviticus 24:23), teaches us about the implementation of Godโ€™s instructions, i.e., that the children of Israel did in fact carry out His command.

ืขืฉื™ื™ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืฉื• ื›ืืฉืจ ืฆื•ื” ื”ืณ ืืช ืžืฉื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื—ื“ ืœืกืžื™ื›ื” ื•ื—ื“ ืœื“ื—ื™ื™ื”

The Gemara raises an objection: The implementation of Godโ€™s instructions is written explicitly in this context, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: โ€œAnd the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.โ€ The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to teach us that not only was the condemned man taken outside the three camps and stoned, but the rest of Godโ€™s instructions were also fulfilled. These instructions relate to the placing of the witnessesโ€™ hands upon the head of the condemned man, as it is stated: โ€œAnd let all that heard him place their hands upon his headโ€ (Leviticus 24:14), and to the witnessesโ€™ pushing of the condemned man from a platform the height of two stories.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœื“ื™ื“ืš ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ื”ื•ืฆื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืคืจื™ื ื”ื ืฉืจืคื™ื ืžืื™ ื“ืจืฉืช ื‘ื”ื• ืงืฉื™ื

The Sages said to Rav Ashi: According to you, that the expression โ€œtake outโ€ by itself means outside the camp, and โ€œoutside the campโ€ means outside an additional camp, what do you learn from all those instances of โ€œtake outโ€ that are written with regard to the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned? According to your explanation, there are many superfluous phrases in the verses. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is difficult with regard to the opinion of Rav Ashi.

ืื—ื“ ืขื•ืžื“ ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ืื‘ืŸ ืฉื ืกืงืœ ื‘ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืขืฅ ืฉื ืชืœื” ื‘ื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืกื™ื™ืฃ ืฉื ื”ืจื’ ื‘ื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืกื•ื“ืจ ืฉื ื—ื ืง ื‘ื• ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืžืฉืœ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืžื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ื•ืœื™ืชื™ื” ื•ืœื™ืงื˜ื•ืœ ื ืคืฉื™ื”

ยง The mishna teaches that one man stands at the entrance to the court, with cloths in his hand, ready to signal to the court agents leading the condemned man to his execution that some doubt has been raised with respect to the latterโ€™s guilt. Rav Huna says: It is obvious to me that the stone with which the condemned man is stoned and the tree on which his corpse is hung after his execution, or the sword with which he is killed, or the scarf with which he is strangled, all of these come from the property of the community. What is the reason for this? We do not tell the condemned man to go and bring these items from his own property and effectively kill himself.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืกื•ื“ืจ ืฉืžื ื™ืคื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ืกื•ืก ืฉืจืฅ ื•ืžืขืžื™ื“ืŸ ืžืฉืœ ืžื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื”ืฆืœื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืžืขื‘ื“ ื‘ื” ื”ืฆืœื” ืžื“ื™ื“ื”ื•

Rav Huna raised a dilemma: With regard to the cloth that is waved and the horse that races off after the court agents to stop the latter from carrying out the execution, from whose property do they come, that of the condemned man or that of the community? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Since they are needed to save the man being led to his execution, these items should be taken from his property. Or perhaps, since the court is obligated to take all possible measures to save him from death, they should be taken from them, i.e., the community.

ื•ืชื• ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืœื™ื”ืจื’ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืงื•ืจื˜ ืฉืœ ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื‘ื›ื•ืก ืฉืœ ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืชื˜ืจืฃ ื“ืขืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ืชื ื• ืฉื›ืจ ืœืื•ื‘ื“ ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืžืจื™ ื ืคืฉ ื•ืชื ื™ื ื ืฉื™ื ื™ืงืจื•ืช ืฉื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื”ื™ื• ืžืชื ื“ื‘ื•ืช ื•ืžื‘ื™ืื•ืช ืื•ืชืŸ ืœื ื”ืชื ื“ื‘ื• ื ืฉื™ื ื™ืงืจื•ืช ืžืฉืœ ืžื™ ื”ื ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžืฉืœ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชื ื• ืžื“ื™ื“ื”ื•

And furthermore, another question is raised along similar lines: With regard to that which Rav แธคiyya bar Ashi says that Rav แธคisda says: The court gives one who is being led out to be killed a grain [koret] of frankincense in a cup of wine in order to confuse his mind and thereby minimize his suffering from the fear of his impending death, as it is stated: โ€œGive strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soulโ€ (Proverbs 31:6). And it is taught in a baraita: The prominent women of Jerusalem would donate this drink and bring it to those being led out to be killed. The question is: If these prominent women did not donate this drink, from whom is it taken? The Gemara answers: With regard to this question, it is certainly reasonable that this drink should be taken from the community, as it is written: โ€œGive [tenu] strong drink,โ€ in the plural, indicating that it should come from them, the community.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ื ื ืžืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžืจ ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ื™ืฉ ืœื™ ืœืœืžื“ ืขืœื™ื• ื–ื›ื•ืช ื•ื ืฉืชืชืง ืžื”ื• ืžื ืคื— ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื” ื ืฉืชืชืง ืืคื™ืœื• ืื—ื“ ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ืขื•ืœื ื ืžื™ ื”ืชื ืœื ืงืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ืงืืžืจ ืžืื™

ยง Rav Aแธฅa bar Huna asked Rav Sheshet: If one of the students sitting before the judges said: I can teach a reason to acquit him, and he became mute and cannot explain himself, what is the halakha in such a case? Does the court take heed of his words, or do they disregard him? Rav Sheshet waved his hands in scorn and said: If the student became mute, the court certainly does not pay attention to him, as were the court to concern themselves with what he said, they would have to be concerned even that perhaps there is someone at the end of the world who can propose an argument in the condemned manโ€™s favor. The Gemara rejects this argument: The cases are not similar. There, no one said that he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. Here, the student already said that he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. The question, therefore, is appropriate. What is the halakha in such a case?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ืฉื–ื™ื›ื” ื•ืžืช ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื—ื™ ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ื‘ืžืงื•ืžื• ื–ื™ื›ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื–ื™ื›ื” ืœื

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer: As Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina says: In a case where there was one of the students who argued to acquit the defendant and then died, the court views him as if he were alive and standing in his place and voting to acquit the defendant. The implication is that if he argued to acquit the defendant and explained his reasoning, yes, the court counts his vote as if he were still alive. But if he did not actually argue to acquit the defendant, but only said that he wished to propose such an argument, his vote is not counted as though he were still alive.

ื–ื™ื›ื” ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš

The Gemara rejects this proof: If the student argued to acquit the defendant, it is obvious to me that he should be counted among those favoring acquittal. But if he only says that he wishes to propose such an argument, let the dilemma be raised whether or not he should be regarded as having presented a convincing argument in favor of acquittal. The question is left unresolved.

ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืคืขื ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืคืขื ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฉ ืžืžืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืžืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืžื—ื–ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืื™ืœืš ืื ื™ืฉ ืžืžืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืžื—ื–ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืžืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื•

The mishna teaches: And even if he, the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words. The Gemara asks: And is the halakha that there must be substance to his words even the first and second time that the condemned man says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: The first and second times that he says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself, they return him to the courthouse and consider whether there is substance to his statement or there is no substance to his statement. From this point forward, if there is substance to his statement they return him to the courthouse, but if there is no substance to his statement, they do not return him. This appears to contradict the mishna.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืชืจื’ื•ืžื” ืžืคืขื ืฉื ื™ื” ื•ืื™ืœืš

Rav Pappa said: Explain that the mishnaโ€™s ruling applies only from after the second time forward, that from that point on we examine whether there is substance to his words.

ืžื ื ื™ื“ืขื™ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืžืกืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื–ื•ื’ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžืžืฉ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ืื™ ืœื ืœื

The Gemara asks: How do we know whether or not there is substance to his words? Abaye said: If the condemned man has already been returned twice to the courthouse, we send a pair of rabbis with him to evaluate his claim. If they find that there is substance to his statement, yes, he is returned once again to the courthouse; if not, he is not returned.

ื•ืœื™ืžืกืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืื’ื‘ ื“ื‘ืขื™ืช ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืžืื™ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: But why not send a pair of rabbis with him from the outset, even the first time, and have them make an initial assessment of his claim? The Gemara answers: Since a man facing execution is frightened by the thought of his impending death, he is not able to say all that he has to say, and perhaps out of fear he will be confused and not provide a substantial reason to overturn his verdict. Therefore, the first two times he is returned to the courthouse without an initial examination of his arguments. Once he has already been returned on two occasions, the court allows for no further delay, and they send two rabbis to evaluate his claim before returning him a third time.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืฆืื• ืœื• ื–ื›ื•ืช ืคื˜ืจื•ื”ื• ื•ืื ืœืื• ื™ืฆื ืœื™ืกืงืœ ื•ื›ืจื•ื– ื™ื•ืฆื ืœืคื ื™ื• ืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื‘ืŸ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื™ื•ืฆื ืœื™ืกืงืœ ืขืœ ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืขื“ื™ื• ื›ืœ ืžื™ ืฉื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื• ื–ื›ื•ืช ื™ื‘ื ื•ื™ืœืžื“ ืขืœื™ื•

MISHNA: If, after the condemned man is returned to the courthouse, the judges find a reason to acquit him, they acquit him and release him immediately. But if they do not find a reason to acquit him, he goes out to be stoned. And a crier goes out before him and publicly proclaims: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going out to be stoned because he committed such and such a transgression. And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ื‘ืฉืขื” ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื•ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืื™ื›ื ื“ื™ื“ืขื™ ื•ืืชื• ื•ืžื–ื™ื ืœื”ื•

GEMARA: Abaye says: And the crier must also publicly proclaim that the transgression was committed on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, and at such and such a place, as perhaps there are those who know that the witnesses could not have been in that place at that time, and they will come forward and render the witnesses conspiring witnesses.

ื•ื›ืจื•ื– ื™ื•ืฆื ืœืคื ื™ื• ืœืคื ื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืขืจื‘ ื”ืคืกื— ืชืœืื•ื”ื• ืœื™ืฉื• ื”ื ื•ืฆืจื™ ื•ื”ื›ืจื•ื– ื™ื•ืฆื ืœืคื ื™ื• ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื•ื ืณื™ืฉื• ื”ื ื•ืฆืจื™ ื™ื•ืฆื ืœื™ืกืงืœ ืขืœ ืฉื›ื™ืฉืฃ ื•ื”ืกื™ืช ื•ื”ื“ื™ื— ืืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื›ืœ ืžื™ ืฉื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื• ื–ื›ื•ืช ื™ื‘ื•ื ื•ื™ืœืžื“ ืขืœื™ื•ืณ ื•ืœื ืžืฆืื• ืœื• ื–ื›ื•ืช ื•ืชืœืื•ื”ื• ื‘ืขืจื‘ ื”ืคืกื—

The mishna teaches that a crier goes out before the condemned man. This indicates that it is only before him, i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that yes, the crier goes out, but from the outset, before the accused is convicted, he does not go out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve.

ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ื•ืชืกื‘ืจื ื™ืฉื• ื”ื ื•ืฆืจื™ ื‘ืจ ื”ืคื•ื›ื™ ื–ื›ื•ืช ื”ื•ื ืžืกื™ืช ื”ื•ื ื•ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ืœื ืชื—ืžืœ ื•ืœื ืชื›ืกื” ืขืœื™ื• ืืœื ืฉืื ื™ ื™ืฉื• ื“ืงืจื•ื‘ ืœืžืœื›ื•ืช ื”ื•ื”

Ulla said: And how can you understand this proof? Was Jesus the Nazarene worthy of conducting a search for a reason to acquit him? He was an inciter to idol worship, and the Merciful One states with regard to an inciter to idol worship: โ€œNeither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal himโ€ (Deuteronomy 13:9). Rather, Jesus was different, as he had close ties with the government, and the gentile authorities were interested in his acquittal. Consequently, the court gave him every opportunity to clear himself, so that it could not be claimed that he was falsely convicted.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื—ืžืฉื” ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื ื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืœื™ืฉื• ื”ื ื•ืฆืจื™ ืžืชืื™ ื ืงืื™ ื ืฆืจ ื•ื‘ื•ื ื™ ื•ืชื•ื“ื” ืืชื™ื•ื” ืœืžืชื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืณืžืชื™ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืชื™ ืื‘ื•ื ื•ืืจืื” ืคื ื™ ืืœื”ื™ืืณ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืณืื™ืŸ ืžืชื™ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืชื™ ื™ืžื•ืช ื•ืื‘ื“ ืฉืžื•ืณ

Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another baraita, where the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai in to stand trial. Mattai said to the judges: Shall Mattai be executed? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œWhen [matai] shall I come and appear before God?โ€ (Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. They said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: โ€œWhen [matai] shall he die, and his name perish?โ€ (Psalms 41:6).

ืืชื™ื•ื” ืœื ืงืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืณื ืงืื™ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืงื™ ื•ืฆื“ื™ืง ืืœ ืชื”ืจื’ืณ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืณืื™ืŸ ื ืงืื™ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืกืชืจื™ื ื™ื”ืจื’ ื ืงื™ืณ

Then they brought Nakai in to stand trial. Nakai said to the judges: Shall Nakai be executed? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd the innocent [naki] and righteous you shall not slayโ€ (Exodus 23:7)? They said to him: Yes, Nakai shall be executed, as it is written: โ€œIn secret places he kills the innocent [naki]โ€ (Psalms 10:8).

ืืชื™ื•ื” ืœื ืฆืจ ืืžืจ ืณื ืฆืจ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืฆืจ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื• ื™ืคืจื”ืณ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืณืื™ืŸ ื ืฆืจ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืชื” ื”ืฉืœื›ืช ืžืงื‘ืจืš ื›ื ืฆืจ ื ืชืขื‘ืณ

Then they brought Netzer in to stand trial. He said to the judges: Shall Netzer be executed? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd a branch [netzer] shall grow out of his rootsโ€ (Isaiah 11:1)? They said to him: Yes, Netzer shall be executed, as it is written: โ€œBut you are cast out of your grave like an abhorred branch [netzer]โ€ (Isaiah 14:19).

ืืชื™ื•ื” ืœื‘ื•ื ื™ ืืžืจ ืณื‘ื•ื ื™ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื›ืจื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœืณ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืณืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ื ื™ ื™ื”ืจื’ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื ื” ืื ื›ื™ ื”ื•ืจื’ ืืช ื‘ื ืš ื‘ื›ืจืšืณ

Then they brought Buni in to stand trial. Buni said to the judges: Shall Buni be executed? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œMy firstborn son [beni] is Israelโ€ (Exodus 4:22)? They said to him: Yes, Buni shall be executed, as it is written: โ€œBehold, I shall kill your firstborn son [binkha]โ€ (Exodus 4:23).

ืืชื™ื•ื” ืœืชื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืณืชื•ื“ื” ื™ื”ืจื’ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื–ืžื•ืจ ืœืชื•ื“ื”ืณ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืณืื™ืŸ ืชื•ื“ื” ื™ื”ืจื’ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ื‘ื— ืชื•ื“ื” ื™ื›ื‘ื“ื ื ื™ืณ

Then they brought Toda in to stand trial. Toda said to the judges: Shall Toda be executed? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œA psalm of thanksgiving [toda]โ€ (Psalms 100:1)? They said to him: Yes, Toda shall be executed, as it is written: โ€œWhoever slaughters a thanks-offering [toda] honors Meโ€ (Psalms 50:23).

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืืช ื™ืฆืจื• ื•ืžืชื•ื“ื” ืขืœื™ื• ืžืขืœื” ืขืœื™ื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื›ืื™ืœื• ื›ื™ื‘ื“ื• ืœื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืขื•ืœืžื™ื ื”ืขื•ืœื ื”ื–ื” ื•ื”ืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ื‘ื— ืชื•ื“ื” ื™ื›ื‘ื“ื ื ื™

ยง Apropos the last verse cited in this baraita, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to anyone who slaughters his evil inclination after it has tempted him to sin, if he repents and confesses his sin, the verse ascribes him credit as though he had honored the Holy One, Blessed be He, in two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come, as it is written: โ€œWhoever slaughters a thanks-offering [toda] honors Me [yekhabdaneni]โ€ (Psalms 50:23), which can also be read as: Whoever slaughters his evil inclination and confesses [mitvadeh] honors Me, and the two instances of the letter nun in the word yekhabdaneni allude to the two worlds.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ืงื™ื™ื ืื“ื ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืขื•ืœื” ืฉื›ืจ ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืžื ื—ื” ืฉื›ืจ ืžื ื—ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืื‘ืœ ืžื™ ืฉื“ืขืชื• ืฉืคืœื” ืžืขืœื” ืขืœื™ื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืืœื”ื™ื ืจื•ื— ื ืฉื‘ืจื” ื•ืœื ืขื•ื“ ืืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืชืคืœืชื• ื ืžืืกืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื‘ ื ืฉื‘ืจ ื•ื ื“ื›ื” ืืœื”ื™ื ืœื ืชื‘ื–ื”

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also says: When the Temple is standing, if a person sacrifices a burnt-offering, he has the reward given for bringing a burnt-offering, and if he sacrifices a meal-offering, he has the reward given for bringing a meal-offering. But as for one whose spirit is humble, the verse ascribes him credit for his prayer as though he has sacrificed all the offerings, as it is stated: โ€œThe offerings of God are a broken spiritโ€ (Psalms 51:19), which teaches that a broken spirit is equivalent to the offerings to God, in the plural. And moreover, his prayer is not rejected, as it is stated in the continuation of that verse: โ€œA broken and contrite heart, God, You will not despise.โ€

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื™ื” ืจื—ื•ืง ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืกืงื™ืœื” ื›ืขืฉืจ ืืžื•ืช ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ื”ืชื•ื“ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื›ืœ ื”ืžื•ืžืชื™ืŸ ืžืชื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืœ ื”ืžืชื•ื“ื” ื™ืฉ ืœื• ื—ืœืง ืœืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ืขื›ืŸ ืฉืืžืจ ืœื• ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื ื™ ืฉื™ื ื ื ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืœื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ื™ืขืŸ ืขื›ืŸ ืืช ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืžื ื” ืื ื›ื™ ื—ื˜ืืชื™ ื•ื›ื–ืืช ื•ื›ื–ืืช ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉื›ื™ืคืจ ืœื• ื•ื™ื“ื•ื™ื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืžื” ืขื›ืจืชื ื• ื™ืขื›ืจืš ื”ืณ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื–ื” ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื–ื” ืืชื” ืขื›ื•ืจ ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ืขื›ื•ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื

MISHNA: When the condemned man is at a distance of about ten cubits from the place of stoning, they say to him: Confess your transgressions, as the way of all who are being executed is to confess. As whoever confesses and regrets his transgressions has a portion in the World-to-Come. For so we find with regard to Achan, that Joshua said to him: โ€œMy son, please give glory to the Lord, God of Israel, and make confession to Himโ€ (Joshua 7:19). And the next verse states: โ€œAnd Achan answered Joshua, and said: Indeed I have sinned against the Lord, God of Israel, and like this and like that have I done.โ€ And from where is it derived that Achanโ€™s confession achieved atonement for him? It is derived from here, as it is stated: โ€œAnd Joshua said: Why have you brought trouble on us? The Lord shall trouble you this dayโ€ (Joshua 7:25). Joshua said to Achan as follows: On this day of your judgment you are troubled, but you will not be troubled in the World-to-Come.

ื•ืื ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืœื”ืชื•ื•ื“ื•ืช ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื• ืืžื•ืจ ืชื”ื ืžื™ืชืชื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืขื•ื ื•ืชื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื–ื•ืžื ืื•ืžืจ ืชื”ื ืžื™ืชืชื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืขื•ื ื•ืชื™ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืขื•ืŸ ื–ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื ื›ืŸ ื™ื”ื• ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืŸ ื›ื“ื™ ืœื ืงื•ืช ืขืฆืžื•

And if the condemned man does not know how to confess, either from ignorance or out of confusion, they say to him: Say simply: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the condemned man knows that he was convicted by the testimony of conspiring witnesses, but in fact he is innocent, he says: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins except for this sin. The Sages who disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda said to him: If so, every person who is being executed will say that, to clear himself in the eyes of the public. Therefore, if the condemned man does not make such a statement on his own, the court does not suggest it to him as an alternative.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืณื ืืณ ืื™ืŸ ืณื ืืณ ืืœื ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ืงืฉื”

GEMARA: Since the mishna referred to Achanโ€™s sin, the Gemara cites several statements concerning that incident. The Sages taught in a baraita: Joshua said to Achan: โ€œPlease [na] give glory to the Lord, God of Israel, and make confession to Him.โ€ The word โ€œnaโ€ is nothing other than an expression of supplication. Why would Joshua employ an expression of supplication when approaching Achan?

ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืœื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืณื—ื˜ื ื™ืฉืจืืœืณ ืืžืจ ืœืคื ื™ื• ืณืจื‘ื•ื ื• ืฉืœ ืขื•ืœื ืžื™ ื—ื˜ืืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืณื•ื›ื™ ื“ื™ืœื˜ื•ืจ ืื ื™ ืœืš ื”ืคืœ ื’ื•ืจืœื•ืชืณ ื”ืœืš ื•ื”ืคื™ืœ ื’ื•ืจืœื•ืช ื•ื ืคืœ ื”ื’ื•ืจืœ ืขืœ ืขื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืณื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื’ื•ืจืœ ืืชื” ื‘ื ืขืœื™ ืืชื” ื•ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ ื”ื“ื•ืจ ืืชื ืื ืื ื™ ืžืคื™ืœ ืขืœื™ื›ื ื’ื•ืจืœ ืขืœ ืื—ื“ ืžื›ื ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืคืœืณ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืณื‘ื‘ืงืฉื” ืžืžืš ืืœ ืชื•ืฆื™ื ืœืขื– ืขืœ ื”ื’ื•ืจืœื•ืช ืฉืขืชื™ื“ื” ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืชืชื—ืœืง ื‘ื’ื•ืจืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืืš ื‘ื’ื•ืจืœ ื™ื—ืœืง ืืช ื”ืืจืฅืณ

The baraita explains: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: โ€œIsrael has sinnedโ€ (Joshua 7:11), Joshua said to Him: Master of the Universe, who is the one who has sinned? God said to him: Am I an informer [deilator]? Go cast lots and find out for yourself. Joshua then went and cast lots, and the lot fell upon Achan. Achan said to him: Joshua, do you come to execute me merely based on a lot, without any corroborating evidence? You and Elazar the priest are the two most distinguished leaders of the generation, but if I cast a lot upon the two of you, it will perforce fall upon one of you. What then can you prove from a lottery? Joshua said to him: I ask of you, do not spread slander about the lots, as Eretz Yisrael will one day be divided by lots, as it is stated: โ€œNevertheless, the land shall be divided by lotโ€ (Numbers 26:55). Due to you the results of that lottery may be challenged. Therefore, Joshua used the word โ€œna,โ€ pleading with Achan to confess.

ืชืŸ ืชื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืฉื—ื•ื“ื™ ืฉื—ื“ื™ื” ื‘ืžื™ืœื™ ื›ืœื•ื ื ื‘ืงืฉ ืžืžืš ืืœื ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืชืŸ ืœื• ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ื”ื™ืคื˜ืจ ืžื™ื“ ื•ื™ืขืŸ ืขื›ืŸ ืืช ื™ื”ืฉืข ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืžื ื” ืื ื›ื™ ื—ื˜ืืชื™ ืœื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื›ื–ืืช ื•ื›ื–ืืช ืขืฉื™ืชื™

Joshua said to Achan: โ€œPlease give glory to the Lord, God of Israel, and make confession to Him.โ€ Ravina says: Joshua won over Achan with his words, saying: Do we ask anything of you but a confession? Make confession to Him and be discharged. Thinking that if he confessed, he would be pardoned, Achan immediately responded: โ€œAnd Achan answered Joshua, and said: Indeed I have sinned against the Lord, God of Israel, and like this and like that have I doneโ€ (Joshua 7:20).

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืžืขืœ ืขื›ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื—ืจืžื™ื ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืžืฉื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ืžื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื–ืืช ื•ื›ื–ืืช ืขืฉื™ืชื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื—ืžืฉื” ืืจื‘ืขื” ื‘ื™ืžื™ ืžืฉื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ืžื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉื ืืžืจ ืื ื›ื™ ื—ื˜ืืชื™ ื•ื›ื–ืืช ื•ื›ื–ืืช ืขืฉื™ืชื™

With regard to the words โ€œAnd like this and like that have I done,โ€ Rav Asi says that Rabbi แธคanina says: This teaches that Achan misused consecrated property from three dedications, i.e., three groups of property that had been dedicated to the Lord. Two were during wars waged in the days of Moses, and one was in the days of Joshua, as it is stated: โ€œAnd like this and like that have I done,โ€ indicating that he had already committed similar offenses twice before committing the offense in Jericho. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Achan misused property from five dedications, four during wars waged in the days of Moses, and one in the days of Joshua, as it is stated: โ€œI have sinned against the Lord, God of Israel, and like this and like that have I done,โ€ with each โ€œandโ€ alluding to an additional prior offense.

ื•ืขื“ ื”ืฉืชื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืื™ืขื ื•ืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœืคื™ ืฉืœื ืขื ืฉ ืขืœ ื”ื ืกืชืจื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉืขื‘ืจื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืช ื”ื™ืจื“ืŸ

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason that the Jewish people were not punished on Achanโ€™s account until now? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Because God did not punish the nation as a whole for hidden sins committed by individuals until the Jewish people crossed the Jordan River.

ื›ืชื ืื™ ืณื”ื ืกืชืจืช ืœื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื ื• ื•ื”ื ื’ืœืช ืœื ื• ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ื ื• ืขื“ ืขื•ืœืืณ ืœืžื” ื ืงื•ื“ ืขืœ ืณืœื ื• ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ื ื•ืณ ื•ืขืœ ืขื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืณืขื“ืณ ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืœื ืขื ืฉ ืขืœ ื”ื ืกืชืจื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉืขื‘ืจื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืช ื”ื™ืจื“ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Gemara notes that this is subject to a dispute between tannaโ€™im. The verse states: โ€œThe hidden matters belong to the Lord our God, but those matters that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever [ad olam], that we may do all the words of this Torahโ€ (Deuteronomy 29:28). Why in a Torah scroll are there dots over each of the letters in the words โ€œto us and to our childrenโ€ and over the letter ayin in the word โ€œforever [ad]โ€? The dots, which function like erasures that weaken the force of the words, teach that God did not punish the nation for hidden sins until the Jewish people crossed the Jordan River. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืขื ืฉ ืขืœ ื”ื ืกืชืจื•ืช ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ื”ืœื ื›ื‘ืจ ื ืืžืจ ืณืขื“ ืขื•ืœืืณ ืืœื ื›ืฉื ืฉืœื ืขื ืฉ ืขืœ ื”ื ืกืชืจื•ืช ื›ืš ืœื ืขื ืฉ ืขืœ ืขื•ื ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ื’ืœื•ื™ ืขื“ ืฉืขื‘ืจื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืช ื”ื™ืจื“ืŸ ืืœื

Rabbi Neแธฅemya said to him: And does God ever punish the nation as a whole for hidden sins committed by individuals? But isnโ€™t it already stated: โ€œThe hidden matters belong to the Lord our Godโ€ฆforever,โ€ indicating that the Jewish people will never be collectively held responsible for the secret sins of individuals? Rather, the dots over the words teach that just as God did not ever punish the nation as a whole for hidden sins committed by individuals, so too, He did not punish the entire nation for sins committed publicly by individuals until the Jewish people crossed the Jordan River. The Gemara asks: But if so,

Scroll To Top