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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 30, 2017 | 讞壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讝

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

  • 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 45

Study Guide Sanhedrin 45. If after the person is convicted, the witnesses claim that they were lying, we聽do not accept their testimony and the person is killed. 聽Likewise, if the convicted person himself makes it clear that he/she is innocent, they are still sent to be killed as there is reason to believe that they are not telling the truth and therefore the court’s original ruling stands. 聽How was the stoning ceremony done? 聽A man is stripped of his clothing but was the woman also? 聽This is a subject of debate and seems to contradict a similar argument by the same rabbis regarding the Sotah. 聽One who is stoned is thrown from a building by one of the witnesses and then a rock is thrown on him by another. Where is this derived from? 聽In all of these laws, there is an underlying concept that one should choose the quickest method of death.


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

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讬砖 诪讻住讬谉 讗讜转讜 驻专拽 讗讞讚 诪诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗砖讛 砖谞讬 驻专拽讬诐 讘讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬讛 讘讬谉 诪诇讗讞专讬讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讜诇讛 注专讜讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讗讬砖 谞住拽诇 注专讜诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞住拽诇转 注专讜诪讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a man is stoned naked but a woman is not stoned naked. With regard to this matter the Sages taught a related baraita: They cover a man鈥檚 genitals with one piece of cloth in the front, and a woman is covered with two pieces of cloth, both in the front and in the back, because all of that area is nakedness, which may not be viewed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Rabbis say: A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜专讙诪讜 讗转讜 诪讗讬 讗讜转讜

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that a man is stoned naked, but a woman is not? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd all the congregation shall stone him鈥 (Leviticus 24:14). What does the verse intend to teach when it emphasizes that they stone 鈥渉im鈥?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讜转讜 讜诇讗 讗讜转讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讜爪讗转 讗转 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讗讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讛讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讜转讜 讗讜转讜 讘诇讗 讻住讜转讜 讛讗 讗讜转讛 讘讻住讜转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗转讜 讘诇讗 讻住讜转讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗砖讛

If we say that this serves to teach that they stone only him, the man, but not her, i.e., women are not punished with stoning, there is a difficulty. As isn鈥檛 it written explicitly: 鈥淎nd you shall bring forth that man or that woman鈥nd stone them with stones until they die鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:5)? Rather, what does the verse mean to teach when it stresses that they stone 鈥渉im鈥? If he is a man, they stone just him, without his clothes, but if the condemned party is a woman, they stone her with her clothing. Rabbi Yehuda says: The emphasis on the word 鈥渉im鈥 teaches that they stone him alone, i.e., without his clothes, but as is the case with all other punishments stated in the Torah, there is no difference for a man and no difference for a woman, meaning the same halakha applies to both men and women.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘谞谉 讞讬讬砖讬 诇讛专讛讜专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诇讛专讛讜专讗 讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注谞讗 诇讛讜 讚转谞谉 讛讻讛谉 讗讜讞讝 讘讘讙讚讬讛 讗诐 谞拽专注讜 谞拽专注讜 讜讗诐 谞驻专诪讜 谞驻专诪讜 注讚 砖诪讙诇讛 讗转 诇讘讛 讜住讜转专 讗转 砖注专讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 诇讘讛 谞讗讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪讙诇讛讜 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 砖注专讛 谞讗讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 住讜转专讜

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the Rabbis are concerned that the sight of a naked woman will arouse sexual thoughts among the onlookers, and Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about such sexual thoughts? But didn鈥檛 we hear them say just the opposite, as we learned in a mishna (Sota 7a) with regard to a sota, a woman suspected of adultery by her husband, and who was made to undergo the ordeal of the bitter waters: And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls it, without concern about what happens to it. If the clothes are torn, they are torn; if the stitches come apart, they come apart. And he pulls her clothing until he reveals her heart, i.e., her chest. And then he unbraids her hair. Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it. This seems to indicate that it is Rabbi Yehuda who is concerned about the sexual thoughts of the onlookers.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 砖诪讗 转爪讗 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讝讻讗讛 讜讬转讙专讜 讘讛 驻讬专讞讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讻讗 讛讗 诪拽讟诇讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬转讙专讜讬讬 讘讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讙诪讬专讬 讗讬谉 讬爪专 讛专注 砖讜诇讟 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖注讬谞讬讜 专讜讗讜转

Rabba said: There, in the case of a sota, this is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda says that the priest does not reveal the woman鈥檚 chest or unbraid her hair: Perhaps the sota will leave the court having been proven innocent, and the young priests in the Temple who saw her partially naked will become provoked by the sight of her. Here, in the case of a woman who is stoned, she is killed by being stoned, and there is no concern about the onlookers鈥 becoming provoked after her death. The Gemara comments: And if you would say that the fact that she is killed is irrelevant to their having sexual thoughts because the onlookers will be provoked with regard to other women, this is not a concern, as Rabba says: It is learned as a tradition that the evil inclination controls only that which one鈥檚 eyes see.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉

Rava says: Is the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda difficult, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the two rulings of the Rabbis, as with regard to a sota, they are not concerned about sexual thoughts, but with regard to a woman who is stoned they are concerned. Rather, Rava says: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we answered above.

讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞讜住专讜 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 讻讝诪转讻谞讛 讛讻讗 讗讬谉 诇讱 讬讬住讜专 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

Rava continues: The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is not difficult either. With regard to a sota, the verse states that other women should be warned: 鈥淭hus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do like your lewdness鈥 (Ezekiel 23:48). In order to serve as an example and warning to other women, a woman suspected of adultery must undergo public disgrace, and therefore the concern about the sexual thoughts that her partially naked body might arouse is disregarded. Here, with regard to stoning, you have no chastening greater than seeing this stoning itself.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讬注讘讬讚 讘讛 转专转讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 讘专讜专 诇讜 诪讬转讛 讬驻讛

And if you would say that two forms of chastening, both stoning and humiliation, should be done to her, Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, when putting a woman to death by stoning, she should not be humiliated in the process.

诇讬诪讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘讝讬讜谞讬 讚讗讬谞讬砖 注讚讬驻讗 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 诪谞讬讞讗 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 谞讬讞讗 讚讙讜驻讬讛 注讚讬祝 诪讘讝讬讜谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that whether one rules in accordance with the statement of Rav Na岣an is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no mitzva to select a compassionate death. The Gemara refutes this: No, it may be that everyone agrees with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Minimizing one鈥檚 degradation is better for him than seeing to his physical comfort, i.e., than minimizing his physical pain. Therefore, the Rabbis view the more compassionate death as one without degradation, even if wearing clothes will increase the pain of the one being executed, as the clothes will absorb the blow and prolong his death. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one鈥檚 physical comfort is better for him than minimizing his degradation, and therefore the one being executed prefers to be stoned unclothed, without any chance of the clothing prolonging his death, even though this increases his degradation.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讛 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 拽讜诪讜转 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛注讚讬诐 讚讜讞驻讜 注诇 诪转谞讬讜 谞讛驻讱 注诇 诇讘讜 讛讜驻讻讜 注诇 诪转谞讬讜 讜讗诐 诪转 讘讛 讬爪讗

MISHNA: The place of stoning from which the condemned man is pushed to his death is a platform twice the height of an ordinary person. He is made to stand at the edge of the platform, and then one of the witnesses who testified against him pushes him down by the hips, so that he falls face up onto the ground. If he turned over onto his chest, with his face downward, the witness turns him over onto his hips. And if he dies through this fall to the ground, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛砖谞讬 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讗讘谉 讜谞讜转谞讜 注诇 诇讘讜 讗诐 诪转 讘讛 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 专讙讬诪转讜 讘讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讬讚 讛注讚讬诐 转讛讬讛 讘讜 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讛诪讬转讜 讜讬讚 讻诇 讛注诐 讘讗讞专讜谞讛

And if the condemned man does not die from his fall, the second witness takes the stone that has been prepared for this task and places, i.e., casts, it on his chest. And if he dies with the casting of this first stone, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled. And if he does not die with the casting of this stone, then his stoning is completed by all of the Jewish people, i.e., by all the people who assembled for the execution, as it is stated: 鈥淭he hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:7).

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讜拽讜诪讛 砖诇讜 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖诇砖 讜诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪讛 讘讜专 砖讛讜讗 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita: Adding together the height of the platform, which is twice the height of an ordinary person, and the condemned man鈥檚 own height, it turns out that there is a height here three times the height of an ordinary person. The Gemara asks: Do we really need all that height to kill him? The Gemara raises a contradiction to the baraita from what was taught in a mishna (Bava Kamma 50b) when discussing the halakhot of damage caused by a pit: Why does the Torah specify a pit when one is liable for the damage caused by any type of excavation that he digs into the ground? This teaches that just as a pit that is of sufficient depth to cause one鈥檚 death from falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that are of sufficient depth to cause one鈥檚 death may be no less than ten handbreadths. If a fall of ten handbreadths is sufficient to kill a person, why must the platform from which the condemned man is pushed be twice the height of an ordinary person?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 讘专讜专 诇讜 诪讬转讛 讬驻讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬讙讘讛讬讛 讟驻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬谞讜诇

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned man, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, even though the one being executed is likely to die from a fall from a lesser height, a platform is built that is twice the height of an ordinary person in order to ensure a quick and relatively painless death. The Gemara challenges: If so, they should raise the platform even higher. The Gemara answers: This is not done, because if the condemned man were pushed from a higher platform, he would become seriously disfigured, and this would no longer be considered a compassionate form of death.

讗讞讚 诪谉 讛注讚讬诐 讚讜讞驻讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讘讚讞讬讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讬专讛壮 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讘住拽讬诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮住拽讜诇壮

搂 The mishna teaches that one of the witnesses who had testified against the condemned party pushes him off the platform. Concerning this halakha the Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the punishment of stoning can be fulfilled by pushing the condemned party from a high place, so that he dies from his fall? The verse states with regard to those who crossed the boundaries that were set up around Mount Sinai and touched the mountain: 鈥淭ake heed to yourselves, that you not go up into the mountain, or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death; no hand shall touch him, but he shall be stoned or shall be thrown down鈥 (Exodus 19:12鈥13). And from where is it derived that this punishment can be fulfilled with actual stoning? The verse states: 鈥淗e shall be stoned.鈥

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讘讚讞讬讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮住拽讜诇 讬住拽诇 讗讜 讬专讛 讬讬专讛壮 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 诪转 讘讚讞讬讬讛 讬爪讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讗讜 讬专讛 讬讬专讛壮 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗祝 诇讚讜专讜转 讻谉

And from where is it derived that this punishment is sometimes fulfilled both by stoning and by pushing, i.e., if the transgressor did not die from his fall, he is then stoned? The verse states: 鈥淗e shall be stoned or shall be thrown down.鈥 And from where is it derived that if the condemned man died from the pushing, the obligation to stone him has been fulfilled, and there is no further need to actually stone him? The verse states: 鈥淥r shall be thrown down,鈥 with the term 鈥渙r鈥 indicating that only one of the two options must be fulfilled. And from where is it derived that this is the halakha not only at Mount Sinai, but even with regard to future generations?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮住拽讜诇 讬住拽诇壮

The verse states: 鈥淗e shall be stoned [sakol yissakel ],鈥 with the doubled verb form indicating that the halakha applies in all places and at all times.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 注讚 讛砖谞讬 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讗讘谉 谞讜讟诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 壮讗讘谉 讛讬转讛 砖诐 诪砖讜讬 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 谞讜讟诇讛 讜谞讜转谞讛 注诇 诇讘讜 讗诐 诪转 讘讛 讬爪讗壮 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 转讬拽砖讬 诇讱 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 诪砖讜讬 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 谞讜讟诇讛 讜谞讜转谞讛 注诇 诇讘讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if the condemned party does not die from his fall, the second witness takes the stone that had been prepared for this task and casts it on his chest. The Gemara asks: Does the witness take the stone by himself? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A stone was there with a weight that could be lifted only by two men. The witness takes it and places, i.e., casts, it on the condemned party鈥檚 chest. If he dies with the casting of this stone, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled. This indicates that one individual could not lift the stone by himself. The Gemara answers: And according to your reasoning, the baraita itself should pose a difficulty for you, as it first states that the stone was of a weight that could be lifted only by two men, and then it says that the witness takes it and places it on the condemned party鈥檚 chest, apparently acting alone.

讗诇讗 讚诪讚诇讬 诇讛 讘讛讚讬 讞讘专讬讛 讜砖讚讬 诇讛 讗讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬转讬 诪专讝讬讗

Rather, both the mishna and the baraita should be explained as follows: The second witness lifts the stone together with the other witness, but then the second witness alone casts it so that it should fall with force upon the condemned party鈥檚 chest, as two people working together cannot aim their throw with precision.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 专讙讬诪转讜 讻讜壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 砖谞讛 讘讛 讗讚诐 诪讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讚注讘讬讚 讚讗讬 诪爪专讬讱 拽讗诪讬谞讗

The mishna teaches: And if the condemned party does not die with the first stone, then his stoning is completed by all of the Jewish people. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Never did a person repeat the stoning, as the condemned party always died with the first stone cast upon him? The Gemara answers: Did we say that they acted so? Rather, we said that if the condemned party did not die with the casting of the first stone and it was necessary to try again, the stoning is completed by all of the people who assembled for the execution.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讘谉 讛讬转讛 讻讜壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞转 讗讘谉 砖谞住拽诇 讘讛 讜讗讞转 注抓 砖谞转诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讗讞讚 住讬讬祝 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 讜讗讞讚 住讜讚专 砖谞讞谞拽 讘讜 讻讜诇谉 谞拽讘专讬谉 注诪讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪转拽谞讬 讜诪讬讬转讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讞诇讜驻讬讬讛讜

The Master said in the baraita that a stone was there, indicating that a special stone was kept in the place of stoning and used time and time again for this purpose. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The stone with which the condemned party was stoned and the tree on which his corpse was hung, or the sword with which he was killed, or the cloth with which he was strangled, all of them are buried together with him? If so, the same stone could not have been used for every execution. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that after the stones were buried with the transgressor, they would prepare other stones and bring them to the place of stoning in their place.

谞拽讘专讬谉 注诪讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 谞拽讘专讬谉 注诪讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 注诪讜 注诪讜 讘转驻讬住转讜

The baraita teaches that all of the items used in the execution are buried together with the transgressor. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita that they are not buried together with the transgressor? Rav Pappa said: What does the baraita mean when it says that these items are buried together with him? They are not actually buried together with him in the same grave; rather, they are buried within his grasp, i.e., in the area surrounding his grave.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞拽讟注讛 讬讚 讛注讚讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘注讬谞讗 讬讚 讛注讚讬诐 转讛讬讛 讘讜 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诇讬讻讗

Shmuel says: If the witnesses鈥 hands were severed after the transgressor was sentenced to be stoned, so that they can no longer stone him themselves, the transgressor is exempt from punishment and is not executed. What is the reason for this? This is because I need to fulfill what is stated in the verse: 鈥淭he hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:7), and here this is not possible.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 注讚讬诐 讙讬讚诪讬谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻住讬诇讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讚 讛注讚讬诐 砖讛讬转讛 讻讘专

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the witnesses themselves must stone the transgressor or else the sentence is not carried out, if the witnesses lacked hands from the outset, when they offered their testimony, are they also disqualified? The Gemara answers: There it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淭he hand of the witnesses,鈥 indicating that the hands that were there already when the witnesses gave their testimony must throw the first stone when the transgressor is executed. If the witnesses already lacked hands at the time of their testimony, others can throw the first stone.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬注讬讚讜讛讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 壮诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜壮 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讛专讙 转专讙诪讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬讜

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel from what is taught in a mishna (Makkot 7a): In any place where two witnesses testify before a court and say: We testify about so-and-so that his death sentence was issued in such and such a court, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, he is executed, and there is no need to retry him. This seems to indicate that the transgressor is put to death even if the witnesses are not there to throw the first stone. The Gemara explains: Shmuel interpreted the mishna as referring to a case where the witnesses who testify about the transgressor鈥檚 conviction in a different court are the same witnesses who had testified against him at his original trial, and they are present to throw the first stone.

讜诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 拽专讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜讛转谞讬讗 壮诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讛诪讻讛 专讜爪讞 讛讜讗壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘诪讬转讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讜 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诪讬转讜 讘诪讬转讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讜 砖讗转讛 诪诪讬转讜 讘讻诇 诪讬转讛 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诪讬转讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讛诪讻讛壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara raises another difficulty against the opinion of Shmuel: But do we really need to fulfill what is stated in the verse exactly as it is written? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse with regard to a murderer states: 鈥淗e that smote him shall be put to death, for he is a murderer鈥 (Numbers 35:21)? I have derived only that the murderer is put to death with the mode of execution written concerning him, i.e., decapitation. From where do I derive that if you cannot put him to death with the mode of execution written concerning him, e.g., if he is escaping from the court, you can put him to death with any mode of execution with which you can put him to death? The verse states: 鈥淗e that smote him shall be put to death [mot yumat],鈥 where the doubled verb teaches that he is put to death in any case, by any mode of execution. Here too, the condemned party should be executed even if the witnesses cannot cast the first stone.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讜转 讬讜诪转

The Gemara answers: There, concerning a murderer, it is different, as the verse explicitly states: 鈥淗e that smote him shall be put to death,鈥 which serves to include all modes of execution.

讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 专讜爪讞 讜讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: But why not learn from this halakha a principle that can be applied in all cases of capital punishment? The Gemara responds: This case does not prove a principle, because the halakhot of the murderer and of the blood redeemer, i.e., a relative of one who was killed who takes it upon himself to redeem his relative鈥檚 death, are two verses that come as one, and the rule is that two verses that come as one do not teach a principle. In other words, if a halakha is stated in the Torah with regard to two individual cases, the halakha is understood to apply only to those cases. Had the halakha applied to all other relevant cases as well, it would not have been necessary for the Torah to teach it twice. The fact that two cases are mentioned indicates that they are the exceptions rather than the rule.

专讜爪讞 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 壮讙讗诇 讛讚诐 讬诪讬转 讗转 讛专爪讞壮 诪爪讜讛 讘讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 讜诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讗诇 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 壮讘驻讙注讜 讘讜壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara explains: The halakha that capital punishment need not necessarily be imposed in accordance with the Torah鈥檚 specific instructions is taught with regard to two cases, that of the murderer and that of the blood redeemer. The case of a murderer is this halakha that we said. With regard to the case of a blood redeemer, what is it? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭he blood redeemer shall slay the murderer when he meets him鈥 (Numbers 35:21). This mitzva of redeeming the death caused by an unintentional killer falls on the blood redeemer, a relative of the victim. And from where is it derived that if the victim has no blood redeemer the court appoints a blood redeemer for him? As it is stated: 鈥淲hen he meets him,鈥 which teaches that in any case he shall slay the murderer, whether he is a relative or a court-appointed blood redeemer.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 拽专讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜讛转谞谉 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讙讬讚诐 讗讜 讗讬诇诐 讗讜 讞讬讙专 讗讜 住讜诪讗 讗讜 讞专砖 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: And do we not need to fulfill what is stated in the verse exactly as it is written? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Sanhedrin 71a) with regard to a stubborn and rebellious son: If one of the boy鈥檚 parents is with-out a hand, or is mute, or lame, or blind, or deaf, the boy is not rendered a stubborn and rebellious son?

砖谞讗诪专 壮讜转驻砖讜 讘讜壮 讜诇讗 讙讬讚诪讬谉 壮讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讗转讜壮 讜诇讗 讞讬讙专讬谉 壮讜讗诪专讜壮 讜诇讗 讗讬诇诪讬谉 壮讘谞谞讜 讝讛壮 讜诇讗 住讜诪讬谉 壮讗讬谞谞讜 砖诪注 讘拽诇谞讜壮 讜诇讗 讞专砖讬谉

This halakha is derived as it is stated: 鈥淭hen shall his father and his mother lay hold of him, and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:19). This serves to teach: His father and mother 鈥渓ay hold of him,鈥 but not those without a hand who cannot grab him; 鈥渁nd bring him out,鈥 but not those who are lame and cannot take him out. And it is stated: 鈥淎nd they shall say to the elders of his city: This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he does not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:20). This verse serves to teach: 鈥淎nd they shall say,鈥 but not mute people; 鈥渢his our son,鈥 but not the blind, who cannot point to the boy; 鈥渉e does not obey our voice,鈥 but not the deaf.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 拽专讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讜诇讬讛 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗

What is the reason that in all these cases the boy is not rendered a stubborn and rebellious son? Is it not because we need to fulfill what is stated in the verse exactly as it is written, and this principle should hold true with regard to other verses as well? The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, there, in the case of the stubborn and rebellious son, it is different, as the entire verse is superfluous. Therefore, all of the conditions inferred from the verse must be precisely met or else the boy cannot be rendered a stubborn and rebellious son. One cannot apply this principle to other verses.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 诇讛 专讞讜讘 讗讬谉 谞注砖讬转 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛 专讞讜讘 注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 专讞讜讘

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from what is taught in a baraita with regard to an idolatrous city, the majority of whose inhabitants engaged in idol worship, about which the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the open place of the city, and shall burn with fire both the city and the entire plunder taken in it鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:17): If the city does not have an open place, it is not rendered an idolatrous city; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: If it does not have an open place, they make an open place for it.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 专讞讜讘讛 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 专讞讜讘讛 讚讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讻讚诪注讬拽专讗 讚诪讬 讗讘诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 拽专讗 讻讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree only with regard to this detail, that one Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that we need an open place that existed from the outset when the idolatry was committed, while the other Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that an open place that exists now is like an open place that existed from the outset. But everyone agrees that we need to fulfill what is stated in the verse exactly as it is written.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛谉 讬讚 讘讛谉 专讙诇 讗讝谉 讬诪谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讟讛专讛 注讜诇诪讬转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 注诇 诪拽讜诪讜 讜讬讜爪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 注诇 砖诪讗诇讜 讜讬讜爪讗

The Gemara answers: This issue is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As we learned in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 14:9) concerning the purification process of a leper, during the course of which blood and oil must be applied to his right thumb, right big toe, and right ear: If the leper has no right thumb, right big toe, or right ear, he can never attain ritual purity, as he cannot fulfill the conditions of the verse. Rabbi Eliezer says: In such a case, the priest may apply the blood and oil to the place where the missing finger, toe, or ear should have been, and the leper has thereby fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: The priest may apply it to his left thumb, left big toe, or left ear, and the leper has thereby fulfilled his obligation. The first tanna apparently holds that the Torah鈥檚 instructions must be fulfilled exactly as they are written, while Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say that when this is impossible, they are dispensable.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛谞住拽诇讬谉 谞转诇讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞转诇讛 讗诇讗 讛诪讙讚祝 讜讛注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

MISHNA: The corpses of all those who are stoned are hung after their death; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: Only the corpse of the blasphemer, who has cursed God, and the corpse of the idol worshipper are hung.

讛讗讬砖 转讜诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 驻谞讬讜 讻诇驻讬 讛注诐 讜讛讗砖讛 驻谞讬讛 讻诇驻讬 讛注抓 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讗讬砖 谞转诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞转诇讬转 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛诇讗 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 转诇讛 谞砖讬诐 讘讗砖拽诇讜谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖诪讜谞讬诐 谞砖讬诐 转诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚

The corpse of a man is hung facing the people, but the corpse of a woman, out of modesty, is hung with facing the tree; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: the corpse of a man is hung, but the corpse of a woman is not hung. Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Did Shimon ben Shata岣 not hang in Ashkelon women who were found guilty of witchcraft, proving that the corpse of a woman who is executed is also hung? They said to him: No proof can be brought from here, as he hanged eighty women on that day, and the halakha is that the same court may not judge even two people charged with capital transgressions on the same day. It is therefore clear that he was not acting in accordance with Torah law, but rather his execution of the eighty women was an extraordinary punishment necessitated by unusually pressing circumstances.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讜讛讜诪转 讜转诇讬转壮 讬讻讜诇 讻诇 讛诪讜诪转讬谉 谞转诇讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讻讬 拽诇诇转 讗诇讛讬诐 转诇讜讬壮 诪讛 诪拽诇诇 讝讛 砖讘住拽讬诇讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讘住拽讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the corpses of all those who are killed by stoning are hung after their death. The Sages taught in a related baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:22): One might have thought that the corpses of all those who are put to death are hung. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淗is body shall not remain all night upon the tree鈥for he that is hung is a curse of God鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:23), teaching that just as the blasphemer, who is liable to be punished by stoning, is hung after his death, so too, all those who are liable to be punished by stoning are later hung, but those who are liable to be executed in other ways are not hung after their death. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讛 诪拽诇诇 讝讛 砖讻驻专 讘注讬拽专 讗祝 讻诇 砖讻驻专 讘注讬拽专

The baraita continues: And the Rabbis say: Just as the blasphemer, who denies the principle of belief in God, is hung after his death, so too, all who deny the principle of belief in God are hung after they die. But others, even if they are liable to be punished by stoning, are not hung after they are put to death.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 讚专砖讬 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚专讬砖 专讬讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? The Rabbis interpret the verses based on the principle of generalizations and details, one of the methods by which the Torah is interpreted. And Rabbi Eliezer interprets them based on the principle of amplifications and restrictions, a different approach to biblical exegesis.

专讘谞谉 讚专砖讬 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 讜讛讜诪转 讜转诇讬转 讻诇诇 讻讬 拽诇诇转 驻专讟 讗讬 讛讜讜 诪拽专讘讬 诇讛讚讚讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 讛谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

How so? The Rabbis expound the verses based on the principle of generalizations and details. The phrase 鈥淎nd he is put to death, and you shall hang him鈥 is a generalization, as no particular offense is specified. The phrase 鈥淔or he that is hung is a curse of God鈥 is a detail, as a specific transgression is mentioned. Were the generalization and the detail next to each other in the same verse, we would apply the principle of generalizations and details and say that the generalization includes only that which is stated in the detail. Therefore, this transgressor, the blasphemer, yes, his corpse is subject to being hung after he is executed, but the corpse of anyone else is not.

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

  • 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 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 45

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讬砖 诪讻住讬谉 讗讜转讜 驻专拽 讗讞讚 诪诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗砖讛 砖谞讬 驻专拽讬诐 讘讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬讛 讘讬谉 诪诇讗讞专讬讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讜诇讛 注专讜讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讗讬砖 谞住拽诇 注专讜诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞住拽诇转 注专讜诪讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a man is stoned naked but a woman is not stoned naked. With regard to this matter the Sages taught a related baraita: They cover a man鈥檚 genitals with one piece of cloth in the front, and a woman is covered with two pieces of cloth, both in the front and in the back, because all of that area is nakedness, which may not be viewed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Rabbis say: A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜专讙诪讜 讗转讜 诪讗讬 讗讜转讜

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that a man is stoned naked, but a woman is not? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd all the congregation shall stone him鈥 (Leviticus 24:14). What does the verse intend to teach when it emphasizes that they stone 鈥渉im鈥?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讜转讜 讜诇讗 讗讜转讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讜爪讗转 讗转 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讗讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讛讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讜转讜 讗讜转讜 讘诇讗 讻住讜转讜 讛讗 讗讜转讛 讘讻住讜转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗转讜 讘诇讗 讻住讜转讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗砖讛

If we say that this serves to teach that they stone only him, the man, but not her, i.e., women are not punished with stoning, there is a difficulty. As isn鈥檛 it written explicitly: 鈥淎nd you shall bring forth that man or that woman鈥nd stone them with stones until they die鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:5)? Rather, what does the verse mean to teach when it stresses that they stone 鈥渉im鈥? If he is a man, they stone just him, without his clothes, but if the condemned party is a woman, they stone her with her clothing. Rabbi Yehuda says: The emphasis on the word 鈥渉im鈥 teaches that they stone him alone, i.e., without his clothes, but as is the case with all other punishments stated in the Torah, there is no difference for a man and no difference for a woman, meaning the same halakha applies to both men and women.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘谞谉 讞讬讬砖讬 诇讛专讛讜专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诇讛专讛讜专讗 讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注谞讗 诇讛讜 讚转谞谉 讛讻讛谉 讗讜讞讝 讘讘讙讚讬讛 讗诐 谞拽专注讜 谞拽专注讜 讜讗诐 谞驻专诪讜 谞驻专诪讜 注讚 砖诪讙诇讛 讗转 诇讘讛 讜住讜转专 讗转 砖注专讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 诇讘讛 谞讗讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 诪讙诇讛讜 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 砖注专讛 谞讗讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 住讜转专讜

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the Rabbis are concerned that the sight of a naked woman will arouse sexual thoughts among the onlookers, and Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about such sexual thoughts? But didn鈥檛 we hear them say just the opposite, as we learned in a mishna (Sota 7a) with regard to a sota, a woman suspected of adultery by her husband, and who was made to undergo the ordeal of the bitter waters: And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls it, without concern about what happens to it. If the clothes are torn, they are torn; if the stitches come apart, they come apart. And he pulls her clothing until he reveals her heart, i.e., her chest. And then he unbraids her hair. Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it. This seems to indicate that it is Rabbi Yehuda who is concerned about the sexual thoughts of the onlookers.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 砖诪讗 转爪讗 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讝讻讗讛 讜讬转讙专讜 讘讛 驻讬专讞讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讻讗 讛讗 诪拽讟诇讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬转讙专讜讬讬 讘讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讙诪讬专讬 讗讬谉 讬爪专 讛专注 砖讜诇讟 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖注讬谞讬讜 专讜讗讜转

Rabba said: There, in the case of a sota, this is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda says that the priest does not reveal the woman鈥檚 chest or unbraid her hair: Perhaps the sota will leave the court having been proven innocent, and the young priests in the Temple who saw her partially naked will become provoked by the sight of her. Here, in the case of a woman who is stoned, she is killed by being stoned, and there is no concern about the onlookers鈥 becoming provoked after her death. The Gemara comments: And if you would say that the fact that she is killed is irrelevant to their having sexual thoughts because the onlookers will be provoked with regard to other women, this is not a concern, as Rabba says: It is learned as a tradition that the evil inclination controls only that which one鈥檚 eyes see.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉

Rava says: Is the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda difficult, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the two rulings of the Rabbis, as with regard to a sota, they are not concerned about sexual thoughts, but with regard to a woman who is stoned they are concerned. Rather, Rava says: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we answered above.

讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞讜住专讜 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 讻讝诪转讻谞讛 讛讻讗 讗讬谉 诇讱 讬讬住讜专 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

Rava continues: The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is not difficult either. With regard to a sota, the verse states that other women should be warned: 鈥淭hus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do like your lewdness鈥 (Ezekiel 23:48). In order to serve as an example and warning to other women, a woman suspected of adultery must undergo public disgrace, and therefore the concern about the sexual thoughts that her partially naked body might arouse is disregarded. Here, with regard to stoning, you have no chastening greater than seeing this stoning itself.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讬注讘讬讚 讘讛 转专转讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 讘专讜专 诇讜 诪讬转讛 讬驻讛

And if you would say that two forms of chastening, both stoning and humiliation, should be done to her, Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, when putting a woman to death by stoning, she should not be humiliated in the process.

诇讬诪讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘讝讬讜谞讬 讚讗讬谞讬砖 注讚讬驻讗 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 诪谞讬讞讗 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 谞讬讞讗 讚讙讜驻讬讛 注讚讬祝 诪讘讝讬讜谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that whether one rules in accordance with the statement of Rav Na岣an is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no mitzva to select a compassionate death. The Gemara refutes this: No, it may be that everyone agrees with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Minimizing one鈥檚 degradation is better for him than seeing to his physical comfort, i.e., than minimizing his physical pain. Therefore, the Rabbis view the more compassionate death as one without degradation, even if wearing clothes will increase the pain of the one being executed, as the clothes will absorb the blow and prolong his death. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one鈥檚 physical comfort is better for him than minimizing his degradation, and therefore the one being executed prefers to be stoned unclothed, without any chance of the clothing prolonging his death, even though this increases his degradation.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讛 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 拽讜诪讜转 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛注讚讬诐 讚讜讞驻讜 注诇 诪转谞讬讜 谞讛驻讱 注诇 诇讘讜 讛讜驻讻讜 注诇 诪转谞讬讜 讜讗诐 诪转 讘讛 讬爪讗

MISHNA: The place of stoning from which the condemned man is pushed to his death is a platform twice the height of an ordinary person. He is made to stand at the edge of the platform, and then one of the witnesses who testified against him pushes him down by the hips, so that he falls face up onto the ground. If he turned over onto his chest, with his face downward, the witness turns him over onto his hips. And if he dies through this fall to the ground, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛砖谞讬 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讗讘谉 讜谞讜转谞讜 注诇 诇讘讜 讗诐 诪转 讘讛 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 专讙讬诪转讜 讘讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讬讚 讛注讚讬诐 转讛讬讛 讘讜 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讛诪讬转讜 讜讬讚 讻诇 讛注诐 讘讗讞专讜谞讛

And if the condemned man does not die from his fall, the second witness takes the stone that has been prepared for this task and places, i.e., casts, it on his chest. And if he dies with the casting of this first stone, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled. And if he does not die with the casting of this stone, then his stoning is completed by all of the Jewish people, i.e., by all the people who assembled for the execution, as it is stated: 鈥淭he hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:7).

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讜拽讜诪讛 砖诇讜 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖诇砖 讜诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪讛 讘讜专 砖讛讜讗 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗祝 讻诇 讻讚讬 诇讛诪讬转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐

GEMARA: A tanna taught in a baraita: Adding together the height of the platform, which is twice the height of an ordinary person, and the condemned man鈥檚 own height, it turns out that there is a height here three times the height of an ordinary person. The Gemara asks: Do we really need all that height to kill him? The Gemara raises a contradiction to the baraita from what was taught in a mishna (Bava Kamma 50b) when discussing the halakhot of damage caused by a pit: Why does the Torah specify a pit when one is liable for the damage caused by any type of excavation that he digs into the ground? This teaches that just as a pit that is of sufficient depth to cause one鈥檚 death from falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that are of sufficient depth to cause one鈥檚 death may be no less than ten handbreadths. If a fall of ten handbreadths is sufficient to kill a person, why must the platform from which the condemned man is pushed be twice the height of an ordinary person?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 讘专讜专 诇讜 诪讬转讛 讬驻讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬讙讘讛讬讛 讟驻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬谞讜诇

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned man, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, even though the one being executed is likely to die from a fall from a lesser height, a platform is built that is twice the height of an ordinary person in order to ensure a quick and relatively painless death. The Gemara challenges: If so, they should raise the platform even higher. The Gemara answers: This is not done, because if the condemned man were pushed from a higher platform, he would become seriously disfigured, and this would no longer be considered a compassionate form of death.

讗讞讚 诪谉 讛注讚讬诐 讚讜讞驻讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讘讚讞讬讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讬专讛壮 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讘住拽讬诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮住拽讜诇壮

搂 The mishna teaches that one of the witnesses who had testified against the condemned party pushes him off the platform. Concerning this halakha the Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the punishment of stoning can be fulfilled by pushing the condemned party from a high place, so that he dies from his fall? The verse states with regard to those who crossed the boundaries that were set up around Mount Sinai and touched the mountain: 鈥淭ake heed to yourselves, that you not go up into the mountain, or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death; no hand shall touch him, but he shall be stoned or shall be thrown down鈥 (Exodus 19:12鈥13). And from where is it derived that this punishment can be fulfilled with actual stoning? The verse states: 鈥淗e shall be stoned.鈥

讜诪谞讬谉 砖讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讘讚讞讬讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮住拽讜诇 讬住拽诇 讗讜 讬专讛 讬讬专讛壮 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 诪转 讘讚讞讬讬讛 讬爪讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讗讜 讬专讛 讬讬专讛壮 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗祝 诇讚讜专讜转 讻谉

And from where is it derived that this punishment is sometimes fulfilled both by stoning and by pushing, i.e., if the transgressor did not die from his fall, he is then stoned? The verse states: 鈥淗e shall be stoned or shall be thrown down.鈥 And from where is it derived that if the condemned man died from the pushing, the obligation to stone him has been fulfilled, and there is no further need to actually stone him? The verse states: 鈥淥r shall be thrown down,鈥 with the term 鈥渙r鈥 indicating that only one of the two options must be fulfilled. And from where is it derived that this is the halakha not only at Mount Sinai, but even with regard to future generations?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮住拽讜诇 讬住拽诇壮

The verse states: 鈥淗e shall be stoned [sakol yissakel ],鈥 with the doubled verb form indicating that the halakha applies in all places and at all times.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 注讚 讛砖谞讬 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛讗讘谉 谞讜讟诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 壮讗讘谉 讛讬转讛 砖诐 诪砖讜讬 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 谞讜讟诇讛 讜谞讜转谞讛 注诇 诇讘讜 讗诐 诪转 讘讛 讬爪讗壮 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 转讬拽砖讬 诇讱 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 诪砖讜讬 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 谞讜讟诇讛 讜谞讜转谞讛 注诇 诇讘讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if the condemned party does not die from his fall, the second witness takes the stone that had been prepared for this task and casts it on his chest. The Gemara asks: Does the witness take the stone by himself? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A stone was there with a weight that could be lifted only by two men. The witness takes it and places, i.e., casts, it on the condemned party鈥檚 chest. If he dies with the casting of this stone, the obligation to stone the transgressor is fulfilled. This indicates that one individual could not lift the stone by himself. The Gemara answers: And according to your reasoning, the baraita itself should pose a difficulty for you, as it first states that the stone was of a weight that could be lifted only by two men, and then it says that the witness takes it and places it on the condemned party鈥檚 chest, apparently acting alone.

讗诇讗 讚诪讚诇讬 诇讛 讘讛讚讬 讞讘专讬讛 讜砖讚讬 诇讛 讗讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬转讬 诪专讝讬讗

Rather, both the mishna and the baraita should be explained as follows: The second witness lifts the stone together with the other witness, but then the second witness alone casts it so that it should fall with force upon the condemned party鈥檚 chest, as two people working together cannot aim their throw with precision.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 专讙讬诪转讜 讻讜壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 砖谞讛 讘讛 讗讚诐 诪讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讚注讘讬讚 讚讗讬 诪爪专讬讱 拽讗诪讬谞讗

The mishna teaches: And if the condemned party does not die with the first stone, then his stoning is completed by all of the Jewish people. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Never did a person repeat the stoning, as the condemned party always died with the first stone cast upon him? The Gemara answers: Did we say that they acted so? Rather, we said that if the condemned party did not die with the casting of the first stone and it was necessary to try again, the stoning is completed by all of the people who assembled for the execution.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讘谉 讛讬转讛 讻讜壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞转 讗讘谉 砖谞住拽诇 讘讛 讜讗讞转 注抓 砖谞转诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讗讞讚 住讬讬祝 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 讜讗讞讚 住讜讚专 砖谞讞谞拽 讘讜 讻讜诇谉 谞拽讘专讬谉 注诪讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪转拽谞讬 讜诪讬讬转讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讞诇讜驻讬讬讛讜

The Master said in the baraita that a stone was there, indicating that a special stone was kept in the place of stoning and used time and time again for this purpose. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The stone with which the condemned party was stoned and the tree on which his corpse was hung, or the sword with which he was killed, or the cloth with which he was strangled, all of them are buried together with him? If so, the same stone could not have been used for every execution. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that after the stones were buried with the transgressor, they would prepare other stones and bring them to the place of stoning in their place.

谞拽讘专讬谉 注诪讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 谞拽讘专讬谉 注诪讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 注诪讜 注诪讜 讘转驻讬住转讜

The baraita teaches that all of the items used in the execution are buried together with the transgressor. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita that they are not buried together with the transgressor? Rav Pappa said: What does the baraita mean when it says that these items are buried together with him? They are not actually buried together with him in the same grave; rather, they are buried within his grasp, i.e., in the area surrounding his grave.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞拽讟注讛 讬讚 讛注讚讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘注讬谞讗 讬讚 讛注讚讬诐 转讛讬讛 讘讜 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讜诇讬讻讗

Shmuel says: If the witnesses鈥 hands were severed after the transgressor was sentenced to be stoned, so that they can no longer stone him themselves, the transgressor is exempt from punishment and is not executed. What is the reason for this? This is because I need to fulfill what is stated in the verse: 鈥淭he hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:7), and here this is not possible.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 注讚讬诐 讙讬讚诪讬谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻住讬诇讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讚 讛注讚讬诐 砖讛讬转讛 讻讘专

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the witnesses themselves must stone the transgressor or else the sentence is not carried out, if the witnesses lacked hands from the outset, when they offered their testimony, are they also disqualified? The Gemara answers: There it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淭he hand of the witnesses,鈥 indicating that the hands that were there already when the witnesses gave their testimony must throw the first stone when the transgressor is executed. If the witnesses already lacked hands at the time of their testimony, others can throw the first stone.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬注讬讚讜讛讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 壮诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜壮 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讛专讙 转专讙诪讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讛谉 讛谉 注讚讬讜

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel from what is taught in a mishna (Makkot 7a): In any place where two witnesses testify before a court and say: We testify about so-and-so that his death sentence was issued in such and such a court, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, he is executed, and there is no need to retry him. This seems to indicate that the transgressor is put to death even if the witnesses are not there to throw the first stone. The Gemara explains: Shmuel interpreted the mishna as referring to a case where the witnesses who testify about the transgressor鈥檚 conviction in a different court are the same witnesses who had testified against him at his original trial, and they are present to throw the first stone.

讜诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 拽专讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜讛转谞讬讗 壮诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讛诪讻讛 专讜爪讞 讛讜讗壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘诪讬转讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讜 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诪讬转讜 讘诪讬转讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讜 砖讗转讛 诪诪讬转讜 讘讻诇 诪讬转讛 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诪讬转讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讛诪讻讛壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara raises another difficulty against the opinion of Shmuel: But do we really need to fulfill what is stated in the verse exactly as it is written? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse with regard to a murderer states: 鈥淗e that smote him shall be put to death, for he is a murderer鈥 (Numbers 35:21)? I have derived only that the murderer is put to death with the mode of execution written concerning him, i.e., decapitation. From where do I derive that if you cannot put him to death with the mode of execution written concerning him, e.g., if he is escaping from the court, you can put him to death with any mode of execution with which you can put him to death? The verse states: 鈥淗e that smote him shall be put to death [mot yumat],鈥 where the doubled verb teaches that he is put to death in any case, by any mode of execution. Here too, the condemned party should be executed even if the witnesses cannot cast the first stone.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讜转 讬讜诪转

The Gemara answers: There, concerning a murderer, it is different, as the verse explicitly states: 鈥淗e that smote him shall be put to death,鈥 which serves to include all modes of execution.

讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 专讜爪讞 讜讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: But why not learn from this halakha a principle that can be applied in all cases of capital punishment? The Gemara responds: This case does not prove a principle, because the halakhot of the murderer and of the blood redeemer, i.e., a relative of one who was killed who takes it upon himself to redeem his relative鈥檚 death, are two verses that come as one, and the rule is that two verses that come as one do not teach a principle. In other words, if a halakha is stated in the Torah with regard to two individual cases, the halakha is understood to apply only to those cases. Had the halakha applied to all other relevant cases as well, it would not have been necessary for the Torah to teach it twice. The fact that two cases are mentioned indicates that they are the exceptions rather than the rule.

专讜爪讞 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 壮讙讗诇 讛讚诐 讬诪讬转 讗转 讛专爪讞壮 诪爪讜讛 讘讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 讜诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讗诇 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 壮讘驻讙注讜 讘讜壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara explains: The halakha that capital punishment need not necessarily be imposed in accordance with the Torah鈥檚 specific instructions is taught with regard to two cases, that of the murderer and that of the blood redeemer. The case of a murderer is this halakha that we said. With regard to the case of a blood redeemer, what is it? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭he blood redeemer shall slay the murderer when he meets him鈥 (Numbers 35:21). This mitzva of redeeming the death caused by an unintentional killer falls on the blood redeemer, a relative of the victim. And from where is it derived that if the victim has no blood redeemer the court appoints a blood redeemer for him? As it is stated: 鈥淲hen he meets him,鈥 which teaches that in any case he shall slay the murderer, whether he is a relative or a court-appointed blood redeemer.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 拽专讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜讛转谞谉 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讙讬讚诐 讗讜 讗讬诇诐 讗讜 讞讬讙专 讗讜 住讜诪讗 讗讜 讞专砖 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: And do we not need to fulfill what is stated in the verse exactly as it is written? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Sanhedrin 71a) with regard to a stubborn and rebellious son: If one of the boy鈥檚 parents is with-out a hand, or is mute, or lame, or blind, or deaf, the boy is not rendered a stubborn and rebellious son?

砖谞讗诪专 壮讜转驻砖讜 讘讜壮 讜诇讗 讙讬讚诪讬谉 壮讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讗转讜壮 讜诇讗 讞讬讙专讬谉 壮讜讗诪专讜壮 讜诇讗 讗讬诇诪讬谉 壮讘谞谞讜 讝讛壮 讜诇讗 住讜诪讬谉 壮讗讬谞谞讜 砖诪注 讘拽诇谞讜壮 讜诇讗 讞专砖讬谉

This halakha is derived as it is stated: 鈥淭hen shall his father and his mother lay hold of him, and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:19). This serves to teach: His father and mother 鈥渓ay hold of him,鈥 but not those without a hand who cannot grab him; 鈥渁nd bring him out,鈥 but not those who are lame and cannot take him out. And it is stated: 鈥淎nd they shall say to the elders of his city: This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he does not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:20). This verse serves to teach: 鈥淎nd they shall say,鈥 but not mute people; 鈥渢his our son,鈥 but not the blind, who cannot point to the boy; 鈥渉e does not obey our voice,鈥 but not the deaf.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 拽专讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讜诇讬讛 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗

What is the reason that in all these cases the boy is not rendered a stubborn and rebellious son? Is it not because we need to fulfill what is stated in the verse exactly as it is written, and this principle should hold true with regard to other verses as well? The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, there, in the case of the stubborn and rebellious son, it is different, as the entire verse is superfluous. Therefore, all of the conditions inferred from the verse must be precisely met or else the boy cannot be rendered a stubborn and rebellious son. One cannot apply this principle to other verses.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 诇讛 专讞讜讘 讗讬谉 谞注砖讬转 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛 专讞讜讘 注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 专讞讜讘

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from what is taught in a baraita with regard to an idolatrous city, the majority of whose inhabitants engaged in idol worship, about which the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the open place of the city, and shall burn with fire both the city and the entire plunder taken in it鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:17): If the city does not have an open place, it is not rendered an idolatrous city; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: If it does not have an open place, they make an open place for it.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 专讞讜讘讛 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 专讞讜讘讛 讚讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讻讚诪注讬拽专讗 讚诪讬 讗讘诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 拽专讗 讻讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree only with regard to this detail, that one Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that we need an open place that existed from the outset when the idolatry was committed, while the other Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that an open place that exists now is like an open place that existed from the outset. But everyone agrees that we need to fulfill what is stated in the verse exactly as it is written.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛谉 讬讚 讘讛谉 专讙诇 讗讝谉 讬诪谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讟讛专讛 注讜诇诪讬转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 注诇 诪拽讜诪讜 讜讬讜爪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 注诇 砖诪讗诇讜 讜讬讜爪讗

The Gemara answers: This issue is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As we learned in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 14:9) concerning the purification process of a leper, during the course of which blood and oil must be applied to his right thumb, right big toe, and right ear: If the leper has no right thumb, right big toe, or right ear, he can never attain ritual purity, as he cannot fulfill the conditions of the verse. Rabbi Eliezer says: In such a case, the priest may apply the blood and oil to the place where the missing finger, toe, or ear should have been, and the leper has thereby fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: The priest may apply it to his left thumb, left big toe, or left ear, and the leper has thereby fulfilled his obligation. The first tanna apparently holds that the Torah鈥檚 instructions must be fulfilled exactly as they are written, while Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say that when this is impossible, they are dispensable.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛谞住拽诇讬谉 谞转诇讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞转诇讛 讗诇讗 讛诪讙讚祝 讜讛注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

MISHNA: The corpses of all those who are stoned are hung after their death; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: Only the corpse of the blasphemer, who has cursed God, and the corpse of the idol worshipper are hung.

讛讗讬砖 转讜诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 驻谞讬讜 讻诇驻讬 讛注诐 讜讛讗砖讛 驻谞讬讛 讻诇驻讬 讛注抓 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讗讬砖 谞转诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞转诇讬转 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛诇讗 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 转诇讛 谞砖讬诐 讘讗砖拽诇讜谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖诪讜谞讬诐 谞砖讬诐 转诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚

The corpse of a man is hung facing the people, but the corpse of a woman, out of modesty, is hung with facing the tree; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: the corpse of a man is hung, but the corpse of a woman is not hung. Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Did Shimon ben Shata岣 not hang in Ashkelon women who were found guilty of witchcraft, proving that the corpse of a woman who is executed is also hung? They said to him: No proof can be brought from here, as he hanged eighty women on that day, and the halakha is that the same court may not judge even two people charged with capital transgressions on the same day. It is therefore clear that he was not acting in accordance with Torah law, but rather his execution of the eighty women was an extraordinary punishment necessitated by unusually pressing circumstances.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讜讛讜诪转 讜转诇讬转壮 讬讻讜诇 讻诇 讛诪讜诪转讬谉 谞转诇讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讻讬 拽诇诇转 讗诇讛讬诐 转诇讜讬壮 诪讛 诪拽诇诇 讝讛 砖讘住拽讬诇讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讘住拽讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the corpses of all those who are killed by stoning are hung after their death. The Sages taught in a related baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:22): One might have thought that the corpses of all those who are put to death are hung. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淗is body shall not remain all night upon the tree鈥for he that is hung is a curse of God鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:23), teaching that just as the blasphemer, who is liable to be punished by stoning, is hung after his death, so too, all those who are liable to be punished by stoning are later hung, but those who are liable to be executed in other ways are not hung after their death. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讛 诪拽诇诇 讝讛 砖讻驻专 讘注讬拽专 讗祝 讻诇 砖讻驻专 讘注讬拽专

The baraita continues: And the Rabbis say: Just as the blasphemer, who denies the principle of belief in God, is hung after his death, so too, all who deny the principle of belief in God are hung after they die. But others, even if they are liable to be punished by stoning, are not hung after they are put to death.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 讚专砖讬 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚专讬砖 专讬讘讜讬讬 讜诪讬注讜讟讬

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? The Rabbis interpret the verses based on the principle of generalizations and details, one of the methods by which the Torah is interpreted. And Rabbi Eliezer interprets them based on the principle of amplifications and restrictions, a different approach to biblical exegesis.

专讘谞谉 讚专砖讬 讻诇诇讬 讜驻专讟讬 讜讛讜诪转 讜转诇讬转 讻诇诇 讻讬 拽诇诇转 驻专讟 讗讬 讛讜讜 诪拽专讘讬 诇讛讚讚讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 讛谞讬 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

How so? The Rabbis expound the verses based on the principle of generalizations and details. The phrase 鈥淎nd he is put to death, and you shall hang him鈥 is a generalization, as no particular offense is specified. The phrase 鈥淔or he that is hung is a curse of God鈥 is a detail, as a specific transgression is mentioned. Were the generalization and the detail next to each other in the same verse, we would apply the principle of generalizations and details and say that the generalization includes only that which is stated in the detail. Therefore, this transgressor, the blasphemer, yes, his corpse is subject to being hung after he is executed, but the corpse of anyone else is not.

Scroll To Top