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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 6, 2017 | 讟状讜 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sanhedrin 52

Study Guide Sanhedrin 51-52. Rabib Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva debate various isseus regarding the daughter of a kohen getting strangulation. 聽The derivations for each of their opinions are brought. 聽How was the death penalty of burning performed? 聽From where is it derived?


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

讛讗讬 讗讘讬讛 讛讬讗 诪讞诇诇转 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛

what does he derive from this verse: 鈥淪he profanes her father鈥 (Leviticus 21:9), if he does not employ the term 鈥渉er father鈥 for a verbal analogy concerning a young betrothed woman who committed adultery, as Rabbi Akiva does?

诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讗转 讗讘讬讛 讛讬讗 诪讞诇诇转壮 砖讗诐 讛讬讜 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘讜 拽讜讚砖 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘讜 讞讜诇 讻讘讜讚 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘讜 讘讝讬讜谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讗专讜专 砖讝讜 讬诇讚 讗专讜专 砖讝讜 讙讬讚诇 讗专讜专 砖讬爪讗 讝讜 诪讞诇爪讬讜

The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: Why must the verse state: 鈥淪he profanes her father鈥? To teach that if initially they would treat her father in a sacred manner, now they treat him in a profane manner. If previously they would treat him with honor, they now treat him with degradation. They say: Cursed is the one who bore this daughter, cursed is the one who raised this daughter, cursed is the one from whose loins this daughter emerged.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻诪讗谉 拽专讬谞谉 专砖讬注讗 讘专 专砖讬注讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专砖讬注讗 讘专 爪讚讬拽讗 讻诪讗谉 讻讛讗讬 转谞讗

Rav Ashi says: In accordance with whose opinion do we call even a wicked person who is the son of a righteous person: A wicked person, the son of a wicked person? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, Rabbi Meir, who says that a sinful daughter profanes her father, and he too is treated with disgrace.

讝讜 诪爪讜转 讛谞住拽诇讬谉 诪讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 讝讜 诪爪讜转 讛谞住拽诇讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: This describes the mitzva of those who are stoned, i.e., the process of execution by stoning. The Gemara asks: What was taught in the mishna with regard to which it teaches now: This describes the mitzva of those who are stoned?

诪砖讜诐 讚转谞讗 谞讙诪专 讛讚讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇住拽诇讜 讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讛 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 拽讜诪讜转 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 诪爪讜转 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讝讜 诪爪讜转 讛谞住拽诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: The Mishna states this because it teaches in the previous chapter (42b): When the trial has ended in a guilty verdict and the condemned man has been sentenced to stoning, he is taken out to be stoned. And it continues (45a): The place of stoning from which the condemned party is pushed to his death is a platform twice the height of an ordinary person. And since the Mishna wants to teach in the next mishna: The mitzva of those who are burned, and it will then proceed to describe the processes involved in carrying out the other forms of execution, it also teaches in this mishna: This describes the mitzva of those who are stoned, in order to summarize what was taught up to this point.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讜转 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讛讬讜 诪砖拽注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讝讘诇 注讚 讗专讻讜讘讜转讬讜 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 住讜讚专 拽砖讛 诇转讜讱 讛专讻讛 讜讻讜专讱 注诇 爪讜讗专讜 讝讛 诪讜砖讱 讗爪诇讜 讜讝讛 诪讜砖讱 讗爪诇讜 注讚 砖驻讜转讞 讗转 驻讬讜 讜诪讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛驻转讬诇讛 讜讝讜专拽讛 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 讜讬讜专讚转 诇转讜讱 诪注讬讜 讜讞讜诪专转 讗转 讘谞讬 诪注讬讜

MISHNA: The mitzva of those who are burned, i.e., the process of execution by burning, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and they place a rough scarf within a soft one, so his throat will not be wounded, and wrap these scarves around his neck. This one, i.e., one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward himself, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward himself, until the condemned one is forced to open his mouth, as he is choking. And another person then lights the wick and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讜讗 讗诐 诪转 讘讬讚诐 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讜 诪爪讜转 砖专讬驻讛 讗诇讗 驻讜转讞 讗转 驻讬讜 讘爪讘转 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘转讜 讜诪讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛驻转讬诇讛 讜讝讜专拽讛 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 讜讬讜专讚转 诇转讜讱 诪注讬讜 讜讞讜诪专转 讗转 讘谞讬 诪注讬讜

Rabbi Yehuda says: But if this one who is condemned to death by burning accidentally died at their hands by strangulation, they have not fulfilled the mitzva of execution by burning for this person. Rather, the process is carried out in the following manner: One opens the mouth of the condemned person with prongs, against his will, and one lights the wick and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 爪讚讜拽 诪注砖讛 讘讘转 讻讛谉 讗讞转 砖讝讬谞转讛 讜讛拽讬驻讜讛 讞讘讬诇讬 讝诪讜专讜转 讜砖专驻讜讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讘拽讬

Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok said: An incident occurred with regard to a certain priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery, and they wrapped her in bundles of branches and burned her, contrary to the process described in the mishna. The Sages said to him: That court did not act properly; they did so because the court at that time was not proficient in halakha.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 驻转讬诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 驻转讬诇讛 砖诇 讗讘专

GEMARA: What kind of wick is the mishna referring to? Rav Mattana says: A wick of lead, i.e., a long, thin piece of lead in the shape of a wick, which is melted and poured down into the intestines.

诪谞讗 诇谉 讗转讬讗 砖专讬驻讛 砖专讬驻讛 诪注讚转 拽专讞 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖专讬驻转 谞砖诪讛 讜讙讜祝 拽讬讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖专讬驻转 谞砖诪讛 讜讙讜祝 拽讬讬诐

From where do we derive that burning means this kind of death? It is derived from a verbal analogy between the burning that is described in the context of capital punishment (see Leviticus 21:9) and the burning described with regard to the assembly of Korah, when they were burned by God (see Numbers 17:4). Just as there, with regard to the assembly of Korah, they were killed by the burning of the soul within the body, but the body itself remained intact, so too here, the condemned one is executed by the burning of the soul, but the body remains intact. He is not executed by means of the burning of the body with wood, as in that case the body would be consumed.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 砖专讬驻讛 砖专讬驻讛 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖专讬驻转 谞砖诪讛 讜讙讜祝 拽讬讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖专讬驻转 谞砖诪讛 讜讙讜祝 拽讬讬诐

Rabbi Elazar says that there is a different source for this method of burning: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the burning that is described in this context and the burning that is described with regard to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron (see Leviticus 10:6). Just as there, Nadav and Avihu were killed by the burning of the soul, but the body remained intact, so too here, the execution is carried out by the burning of the soul, but the body remains intact.

诪讗谉 讚讬诇讬祝 诪注讚转 拽专讞 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 诪讞转讜转 讛讞讟讗讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讘谞驻砖转诐 砖谞砖诪转谉 谞砖专驻转 讜讙讜祝 拽讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: From where does the one who derives that burning means this kind of death from the assembly of Korah derive that their bodies were not burned? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: 鈥淎nd the firepans of these men who have sinned with their souls鈥 (Numbers 17:3), which indicates that only their souls were burned, but their bodies were intact.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讬讗 砖专讬驻讛 诪诪砖 讛讬讗 讜诪讗讬 讘谞驻砖转诐 砖谞转讞讬讬讘讜 砖专讬驻讛 注诇 注住拽讬 谞驻砖讜转诐

The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, who does not derive that burning means this kind of death from here, interpret the deaths of the assembly of Korah? The Gemara answers: That burning was actual burning of their bodies. And what is the meaning of the term: 鈥淲ith their souls鈥? It means that they were deemed liable to be killed by burning due to matters of sustaining their souls, i.e., they sinned because Korah helped them fulfill their bodily desires, and consequently they followed him.

讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘讞谞驻讬 诇注讙讬 诪注讜讙 讞专拽 注诇讬 砖谞讬诪讜 讘砖讘讬诇 讞谞讜驻讛 砖讛讞谞讬驻讜 诇拽专讞 注诇 注住拽讬 诇讙讬诪讛 讞专拽 注诇讬讛谉 砖专 砖诇 讙讬讛谞诐 砖谞讬讜

This latter explanation is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淲ith the flattering mockeries of spitefulness [maog] they gnash at me with their teeth鈥 (Psalms 35:16)? It means that because of the flattery of those people who flattered Korah over matters of eating, i.e., because of the food and drink that he would give them, the minister of Gehenna gnashed his teeth over them, as they eventually sinned and fell into his hands. The word maog is interpreted homiletically here as alluding to uga, cake.

讜诪讗谉 讚讬诇讬祝 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诪转讜 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讻注讬谉 诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: And from where does the one who derives that burning means this kind of death from the sons of Aaron derive that their bodies were not burned? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: 鈥淎nd fire came out from before the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 10:2). The term 鈥渁nd they died鈥 indicates that it was similar to a natural death, in which the body remains intact.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 砖专讬驻讛 诪诪砖 讛讜讗讬 讜诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诪转讜 讚讗转讞讬诇 讘讛讜 诪讙讜讗讬 讻注讬谉 诪讬转讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讚讜住转讗讬 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 砖诇 讗砖 讬爪讗讜 诪讘讬转 拽讜讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜谞讞诇拽讜 诇讗专讘注 讜谞讻谞住讜 砖谞讬诐 讘讞讜讟诪讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘讞讜讟诪讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜砖专驻讜诐

The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, who does not derive that burning means this kind of death from here, interpret the death of the sons of Aaron? The Gemara answers: That burning was actual burning. And in that case, what is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd they died鈥? It means that the fire started from within them, and therefore it was similar to a natural death, which occurs within the person. As it is taught in a baraita: Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: Two threads of fire came out of the Holy of Holies and split into four, and two entered the nostrils of this one, and the other two entered the nostrils of that one, and the threads of fire burned them.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转讗讻诇 讗讜转诐 讗讜转诐 讜诇讗 讘讙讚讬讛诐

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd devoured them [vatokhal otam]鈥? The usage of the expanded term 鈥vatokhal otam,鈥 instead of the terser vatokhlem, indicates a limitation, i.e., only they were consumed, to the exclusion of their bodies. The Gemara answers: The verse means that the fire devoured 鈥渢hem,鈥 but not their clothes.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖专讬驻讛 诪诪砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖专讬驻讛 诪诪砖

The Gemara asks: And let us derive the correct method of execution by burning from the halakha of the bull offerings that are burned. Just as there, the reference is to actual burning, so too here, perhaps there should be actual burning.

诪住转讘专讗 诪讗讚诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 讗讚诐 讞讜讟讗 谞砖诪讛 驻讬讙讜诇

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that one should derive the halakha with regard to capital punishment from the death of a person, i.e., either from the assembly of Korah or the sons of Aaron, as they share common elements: They deal with a person, a sinner, and a soul that is taken through burning, i.e., the person dies as a result of the burning. Furthermore, the halakha of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul], is not relevant in either case, whereas it is relevant to bull offerings that are burned.

讗讚专讘讛 诪驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 诪讻砖讬专 诇讚讜专讜转

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, one should derive the halakha with regard to capital punishment from the bull offerings that are burned, as both enable the fulfillment of a mitzva, whereas the deaths of the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron were not mitzvot. Furthermore, both of these are fixed halakhot for all future generations, whereas the deaths of the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron were onetime incidents.

讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖讬谉

The Gemara answers: Those elements that are shared by capital punishment and the deaths of the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron are more numerous than the elements that are shared by capital punishment and the bulls that are burned. Therefore, the halakha is derived from the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron.

诪讗谉 讚讬诇讬祝 诪注讚转 拽专讞 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讛讜讗 砖专讬驻讛 诪诪砖 讛讜讗讬 讜谞讬诇祝 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to the one who derives this halakha from the assembly of Korah, what is the reason he does not derive it from the sons of Aaron? Because in his opinion that was actual burning. But if this is the case, let us derive from the death of the sons of Aaron that execution by burning should be performed with actual burning; why does he derive from the assembly of Korah that hot lead should be used?

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

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner one should select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. The method of burning described in the mishna is certainly faster and less painful than the burning of the entire body.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗讬讻讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: And since there is the halakha of Rav Na岣an, why do I need the verbal analogy? Even without this proof execution by burning would have been performed with hot lead, as it is a less painful form of death.

讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖专讬驻转 谞砖诪讛 讜讙讜祝 拽讬讬诐 诇讗讜 砖专讬驻讛 讛讬讗 讻诇诇 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 诇驻讬砖 诇讬讛 讞讘讬诇讬 讝诪讜专讜转 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖专讜祝 诇注讙诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Were it not for the verbal analogy, I would say that a death that includes the burning of the soul, but the body itself remains intact, is not burning at all, and that it does not fulfill the mitzva of execution by burning. And if it is necessary to alleviate the condemned one鈥檚 pain due to the halakha of 鈥淎nd you shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), let the court increase for him the bundles of branches, so that he will burn quicker. Therefore, the verbal analogy teaches us that even internal burning is regarded as burning, and once this has been established it is taken into consideration that he must be executed in the least painful way.

讜讻讘专 讛讬讜 诪砖讛 讜讗讛专谉 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜谞讚讘 讜讗讘讬讛讜讗 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讞专讬讛谉 讗诪专 诇讜 谞讚讘 诇讗讘讬讛讜讗 讗讬诪转讬 讬诪讜转讜 砖谞讬 讝拽谞讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讜讗谞讬 讜讗转讛 谞谞讛讬讙 讗转 讛讚讜专 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讛谞专讗讛 诪讬 拽讜讘专 讗转 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 谞驻讬砖讬 讙诪诇讬 住讘讬 讚讟注讬谞讬 诪砖讻讬 讚讛讜讙谞讬

Apropos the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, an aggadic midrash on this subject is quoted: And it had already happened that Moses and Aaron were walking on their way, and Nadav and Avihu were walking behind them, and the entire Jewish people were walking behind them. Nadav said to Avihu: When will it happen that these two old men will die and you and I will lead the generation, as we are their heirs? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: We shall see who buries whom. Rav Pappa says: This explains the adage that people say: Many are the old camels that are loaded with the skins of young camels.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

Rabbi Eliezer says:

诇诪讛 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讚讜诪讛 诇驻谞讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘转讞诇讛 讚讜诪讛 诇拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 讝讛讘 住讬驻专 讛讬诪谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诇拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 讻住祝 谞讛谞讛 诪诪谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诇拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 讞专砖 讻讬讜谉 砖谞砖讘专 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛

To what is a Torah scholar compared when he is standing before an ignoramus? At first, when he does not know him, the ignoramus considers him to be like a goblet [lekiton] of gold. Once he has conversed with him concerning mundane matters, he considers him to be like a goblet of silver, i.e., the stature of the Torah scholar is downgraded in the eyes of the ignoramus. Once the scholar has received benefit from the ignoramus, he considers him to be like an earthenware goblet, which once broken cannot be fixed.

讗讬诪专转讗 讘转 讟诇讬 讘转 讻讛谉 砖讝讬谞转讛 讛讜讗讬 讗拽驻讛 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讛 讞讘讬诇讬 讝诪讜专讜转 讜砖专驻讛

The Gemara relates: Imrata bat Talei was a priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery. Rav 岣ma bar Toviyya surrounded her with bundles of branches and burned her.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讟注讛 讘转专转讬 讟注讛 讘讚专讘 诪转谞讛 讜讟注讛 讘讚转谞讬讗 讜讘讗转 讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛诇讜讬诐 讜讗诇 讛砖驻讟 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讘讬诪讬诐 讛讛诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖 讻讛谉 讬砖 诪砖驻讟 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讻讛谉 讗讬谉 诪砖驻讟

Rav Yosef says: Rav 岣ma bar Toviyya erred with regard to two halakhot. He erred with regard to the ruling of Rav Mattana, i.e., that burning is performed using a wick of lead, and he erred with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge that will be in those days鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:9), that at a time when there is a priest serving in the Temple, i.e., when the Temple is built, there is judgment of capital cases. By inference, at a time when there is no priest, there is no judgment of capital cases.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诪注砖讛 讘讘转 讻讛谉 砖讝讬谞转讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 爪讚讜拽讬诐 讛讜讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: An incident occurred with regard to a priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery, and she was executed by actual burn-ing, and the Sages said to him that the court at that time was not proficient in halakha. Rav Yosef says: It was a court of the Sadducees, who interpreted the verse according to its straightforward meaning.

讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讛讻讬 讗讛讚专讜 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讝讻讜专谞讬 讻砖讛讬讬转讬 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讜专讻讘 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 砖诇 讗讘讗 讜讛讘讬讗讜 讘转 讻讛谉 砖讝讬谞转讛 讜讛拽讬驻讜讛 讞讘讬诇讬 讝诪讜专讜转 讜砖专驻讜讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 拽讟谉 讛讬讬转 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诪谉 讛拽讟谉 砖谞讬 诪注砖讬诐 讛讜讜

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok say that to the Sages, and did the Sages answer him in that manner? But isn鈥檛 a different version of the exchange taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: I remember when I was a child, and was riding on my father鈥檚 shoulders. And they brought a priest鈥檚 daughter who had committed adultery, and surrounded her with bundles of branches and burned her. The Sages said to him: You were a minor at that time and one cannot bring proof from the testimony of a minor, as perhaps you did not understand the proceedings properly. The two versions of this exchange do not accord with each other. The Gemara answers: There were two separate incidents, and Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok testified with regard to both.

讛讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘专讬砖讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讚讜诇 讜诇讗 讗砖讙讞讜 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻砖讛讜讗 拽讟谉 讜讗砖讙讞讜 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: Which incident did he tell the Sages about first? If we say that first he told them about this first incident, i.e., the one that is recounted in the mishna, this is unreasonable; if he first told them about the incident that occurred when he was an adult, and they paid no attention to him, but rejected his statement by responding that the court was not proficient in halakha, would he tell them afterward about the incident that occurred when he was a small child and think that they would pay attention to him?

讗诇讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘专讬砖讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 拽讟谉 讛讬讬转 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讚讜诇 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讘拽讬

Rather, it is clear that he first told them about that incident, i.e., the one recounted in the baraita, and they said to him: You were a minor, and one cannot bring proof from the testimony of a minor. And then he told them about the incident that occurred when he was an adult, and they said to him: The court did so because the court at that time was not proficient in halakha.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讜转 讛谞讛专讙讬谉 讛讬讜 诪转讬讝讬谉 讗转 专讗砖讜 讘住讬讬祝 讻讚专讱 砖讛诪诇讻讜转 注讜砖讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞讬讜讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗转 专讗砖讜 注诇 讛住讚谉 讜拽讜爪抓 讘拽讜驻讬抓 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪讬转讛 诪谞讜讜诇转 诪讝讜

MISHNA: The mitzva of those who are killed, i.e., the process of execution by decapitation, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners cut off his head with a sword, the way that the monarchy does when a king sentences a person to death. Rabbi Yehuda says: This manner of execution is improper, as it degrades him. Rather, they place the head of the condemned on the block, and chop it off with a cleaver [bekofitz]. The Rabbis said to him: If you are concerned about his degradation, there is no death penalty more degrading than that. It is better for him to be executed in the manner described first.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讗祝 讗谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖诪讬转讛 诪谞讜讜诇转 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 壮讜讘讞拽转讬讛诐 诇讗 转诇讻讜壮

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:3): Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: I too, know that it is a degrading death, but what shall I do, as the Torah states: 鈥淎nd you shall not follow their statutes鈥 (Leviticus 18:3), i.e., it is prohibited to adopt the practices of the gentiles.

讜专讘谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 住讬讬祝 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讗 讙诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Since decapitation by the sword is written in the Torah, it is not from the gentiles that we learn it. This is Torah law, and the custom of the gentiles is not taken into consideration. It is of no import that they have a corresponding type of execution.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇 讛诪诇讻讬诐 讜诇讗 诪讚专讻讬 讛讗诪讜专讬 讛讬讻讬 砖专驻讬谞谉 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讘讞拽转讬讛诐 诇讗 转诇讻讜 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 砖专讬驻讛 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘诪砖专驻讜转 讗讘讜转讬讱 讜讙讜壮 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 住讬讬祝 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讗 讙诪专讬谞谉

As, if you do not say so, that a Jewish custom is not forbidden even if the gentiles have the same custom, then that which is taught in a baraita poses a difficulty. The baraita teaches: One burns vessels and clothes over the deaths of kings as an expression of grief, and this is not forbidden for being of the ways of the Amorites. How can we perform this burning? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd you shall not follow their statutes鈥? Rather, since burning items over the death of a king is written in the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淎nd with the burnings of your fathers, the first kings who came before you, so shall they make a burning for you鈥 (Jeremiah 34:5), it is not from the gentiles that we learn it. And here too, since decapitation by the sword is written in the Torah, it is not from them that we learn it.

讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 讘讗讬讚讱 驻讬专拽讬谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛谞讛专讙讬谉 讛专讜爪讞 讜讗谞砖讬 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 讘砖诇诪讗 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 诇驻讬 讞专讘 讗诇讗 专讜爪讞 诪谞诇谉

搂 The Gemara asks: And with regard to that which we learned in a mishna in another chapter of this tractate (76b): These transgressors are those who are killed by decapitation: The murderer and the people of an idolatrous city, there is a difficulty. Granted, the people of an idolatrous city are executed in this manner, as it is written concerning them: 鈥淵ou shall smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:16). But with regard to a murderer, from where do we derive that he is executed by decapitation?

讚转谞讬讗 壮谞拽诐 讬谞拽诐壮 壮谞拽讬诪讛壮 讝讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛讜讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 壮讜讛讘讗转讬 注诇讬讻诐 讞专讘 谞拽诪转 谞拽诐 讘专讬转壮 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 谞拽讬诪讛 讝讜 住讬讬祝

The Gemara answers that it is derived as it is taught in a baraita: It is stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man smites his slave or his maidservant by the staff and he dies under his hand, he shall be avenged鈥 (Exodus 21:20). Prima facie, I do not know what this vengeance is referring to. When it says: 鈥淎nd I will bring upon you the sword avenging the vengeance of the covenant鈥 (Leviticus 26:25), you must say that vengeance is decapitation by the sword.

讜讗讬诪讗 讚讘专讬讝 诇讬讛 诪讬讘专讝 诇驻讬 讞专讘 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the executioner should stab him with a sword, rather than decapitate him? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to the people of an idolatrous city: 鈥淲ith the edge of the sword,鈥 indicating that the execution should be administered with the edge of the sword and not its point.

讜讗讬诪讗 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讙讬住讟专讗 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

The Gemara asks: But say that the executioner should cut him in half [gistera], down the middle of his body. The Gemara answers that Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, one should select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Cutting his body in half is not a compassionate manner of execution.

讗砖讻讞谉 讚拽讟诇 注讘讚讗 讘专 讞讜专讬谉 诪谞讗 诇谉

The Gemara asks: We have found proof that one who killed a Canaanite slave is executed by decapitation. But from where do we derive that one who kills a freeman is executed in the same manner?

讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 拽讟诇 注讘讚讗 讘住讬讬祝 讘专 讞讜专讬谉 讘讞谞拽

The Gemara answers: But is it not inferred a fortiori? If one who killed a Canaanite slave is executed by the sword, should one who killed a freeman be executed merely by strangulation?

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞谞拽 拽诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞谞拽 讞诪讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

This Gemara rejects this answer: This works out well according to the one who says that strangulation is a more lenient type of capital punishment than decapitation. But according to the one who says that strangulation is more severe than decapitation, what can be said? It is possible that one who murdered a freeman is in fact executed by strangulation.

谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚转谞讬讗 壮讜讗转讛 转讘注专 讛讚诐 讛谞拽讬 诪拽专讘讱壮 讛讜拽砖讜 讻诇 砖讜驻讻讬 讚诪讬诐 诇注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘住讬讬祝 讜诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘住讬讬祝 讜诪谉 讛爪讜讗专

The Gemara answers: The mishna derives it from that which is taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd so shall you put away the innocent blood from your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:9), that all spillers of blood are compared to the heifer whose neck is broken as atonement for an unresolved murder. Just as there, the heifer is killed by the sword and at the neck, so too here, murderers are executed by the sword and at the neck.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘拽讜驻讬抓 讜诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽讜驻讬抓 讜诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 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

The Gemara challenges: If so, perhaps it should be derived that just as there, the heifer is decapitated with a cleaver and at the nape of the neck, so too here, murderers should be decapitated with a cleaver and at the nape of the neck. The Gemara answers that Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, one should select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Although the type of capital punishment is derived from the heifer whose neck is broken, the most compassionate method of decapitation is selected.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讜转 讛谞讞谞拽讬谉 讛讬讜 诪砖拽注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讝讘诇 注讚 讗专讻讜讘讜转讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 住讜讚专 拽砖讛 诇转讜讱 讛专讻讛 讜讻讜专讱 注诇 爪讜讗专讜 讝讛 诪讜砖讱 讗爪诇讜 讜讝讛 诪讜砖讱 讗爪诇讜 注讚 砖谞驻砖讜 讬讜爪讗转

MISHNA: The mitzva of those who are strangled is carried out in the following manner: The agents of the court submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and one of them places a rough scarf within a soft one, and wraps it around his neck. This one, i.e., one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward him, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward him, until the soul of the condemned one departs.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讗讬砖壮 驻专讟 诇拽讟谉 壮讗砖专 讬谞讗祝 讗转 讗砖转 讗讬砖壮 驻专讟 诇讗砖转 拽讟谉 壮讗砖转 专注讛讜壮 驻专讟 诇讗砖转 讗讞专讬诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd a man who commits adultery with another man鈥檚 wife, even he who commits adultery with his neighbor鈥檚 wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 20:10). The term: 鈥淎 man,鈥 is interpreted as excluding a minor boy who committed adultery before he came of age. The phrase: 鈥淲ho commits adultery with another man鈥檚 wife,鈥 is interpreted as excluding the wife of a minor boy; marriage to a minor is not considered halakhic marriage. 鈥淗is neighbor鈥檚 wife鈥 excludes the wife of another, i.e., a gentile, who is not referred to as 鈥渉is neighbor.鈥

壮诪讜转 讬讜诪转壮 讘讞谞拽 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讞谞拽 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讞转 诪讻诇 诪讬转讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讗诪专转 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诪讬转讛 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讗讬谉 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜砖讻讛 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

鈥淪hall be put to death鈥 means death by strangulation. Do you say that his execution is by strangulation, or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty stated in the Torah? You must say that it is by strangulation, as everywhere that the death penalty is stated in the Torah without specification you may not take it to be more stringent with regard to it, i.e., to mean that the sinner should be sentenced to a severe type of execution; rather, you must take it to be more lenient with regard to it, i.e., that a lenient type of execution should be applied. Consequently, the sinner is sentenced to be executed by strangulation, which is the least severe type of capital punishment. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 拽诇讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讞谞拽

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yonatan says: It is not because strangulation is the most lenient type of capital punishment; rather, there is a principle that every death penalty stated in the Torah without specification is nothing other than strangulation, whereas the other types of capital punishment must be stated explicitly in the verse.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 诪讬转讛 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 诪讬转讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 诪讛 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诪讬转讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 专讜砖诐 讗祝 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 诪讬转讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 专讜砖诐

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan: Death at the hand of Heaven is stated in the Torah, and death at the hands of a person, i.e., court-imposed capital punishment, is stated in the Torah. Just as the death at the hand of Heaven that is stated in the Torah is a death that leaves no external mark, so too, the death at the hands of a person that is stated in the Torah is a death that leaves no external mark, i.e., strangulation.

讜讗讬诪讗 砖专讬驻讛 诪讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘转 讻讛谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讛讗 诇讗讜 讘转 砖专讬驻讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: But why not say that perhaps it is referring to execution by burning, which also leaves no external mark? The Gemara answers: From the fact that the Merciful One states explicitly that a priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery is executed by burning one can learn by inference that this other woman who committed adultery is not liable to be executed by burning, but rather by a different type of execution that does not leave a mark, i.e., strangulation.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 52

讛讗讬 讗讘讬讛 讛讬讗 诪讞诇诇转 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛

what does he derive from this verse: 鈥淪he profanes her father鈥 (Leviticus 21:9), if he does not employ the term 鈥渉er father鈥 for a verbal analogy concerning a young betrothed woman who committed adultery, as Rabbi Akiva does?

诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讗转 讗讘讬讛 讛讬讗 诪讞诇诇转壮 砖讗诐 讛讬讜 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘讜 拽讜讚砖 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘讜 讞讜诇 讻讘讜讚 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘讜 讘讝讬讜谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讗专讜专 砖讝讜 讬诇讚 讗专讜专 砖讝讜 讙讬讚诇 讗专讜专 砖讬爪讗 讝讜 诪讞诇爪讬讜

The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: Why must the verse state: 鈥淪he profanes her father鈥? To teach that if initially they would treat her father in a sacred manner, now they treat him in a profane manner. If previously they would treat him with honor, they now treat him with degradation. They say: Cursed is the one who bore this daughter, cursed is the one who raised this daughter, cursed is the one from whose loins this daughter emerged.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻诪讗谉 拽专讬谞谉 专砖讬注讗 讘专 专砖讬注讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专砖讬注讗 讘专 爪讚讬拽讗 讻诪讗谉 讻讛讗讬 转谞讗

Rav Ashi says: In accordance with whose opinion do we call even a wicked person who is the son of a righteous person: A wicked person, the son of a wicked person? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, Rabbi Meir, who says that a sinful daughter profanes her father, and he too is treated with disgrace.

讝讜 诪爪讜转 讛谞住拽诇讬谉 诪讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 讝讜 诪爪讜转 讛谞住拽诇讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: This describes the mitzva of those who are stoned, i.e., the process of execution by stoning. The Gemara asks: What was taught in the mishna with regard to which it teaches now: This describes the mitzva of those who are stoned?

诪砖讜诐 讚转谞讗 谞讙诪专 讛讚讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇住拽诇讜 讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讛 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 拽讜诪讜转 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 诪爪讜转 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讝讜 诪爪讜转 讛谞住拽诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: The Mishna states this because it teaches in the previous chapter (42b): When the trial has ended in a guilty verdict and the condemned man has been sentenced to stoning, he is taken out to be stoned. And it continues (45a): The place of stoning from which the condemned party is pushed to his death is a platform twice the height of an ordinary person. And since the Mishna wants to teach in the next mishna: The mitzva of those who are burned, and it will then proceed to describe the processes involved in carrying out the other forms of execution, it also teaches in this mishna: This describes the mitzva of those who are stoned, in order to summarize what was taught up to this point.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讜转 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讛讬讜 诪砖拽注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讝讘诇 注讚 讗专讻讜讘讜转讬讜 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 住讜讚专 拽砖讛 诇转讜讱 讛专讻讛 讜讻讜专讱 注诇 爪讜讗专讜 讝讛 诪讜砖讱 讗爪诇讜 讜讝讛 诪讜砖讱 讗爪诇讜 注讚 砖驻讜转讞 讗转 驻讬讜 讜诪讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛驻转讬诇讛 讜讝讜专拽讛 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 讜讬讜专讚转 诇转讜讱 诪注讬讜 讜讞讜诪专转 讗转 讘谞讬 诪注讬讜

MISHNA: The mitzva of those who are burned, i.e., the process of execution by burning, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and they place a rough scarf within a soft one, so his throat will not be wounded, and wrap these scarves around his neck. This one, i.e., one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward himself, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward himself, until the condemned one is forced to open his mouth, as he is choking. And another person then lights the wick and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讜讗 讗诐 诪转 讘讬讚诐 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讜 诪爪讜转 砖专讬驻讛 讗诇讗 驻讜转讞 讗转 驻讬讜 讘爪讘转 砖诇讗 讘讟讜讘转讜 讜诪讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛驻转讬诇讛 讜讝讜专拽讛 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 讜讬讜专讚转 诇转讜讱 诪注讬讜 讜讞讜诪专转 讗转 讘谞讬 诪注讬讜

Rabbi Yehuda says: But if this one who is condemned to death by burning accidentally died at their hands by strangulation, they have not fulfilled the mitzva of execution by burning for this person. Rather, the process is carried out in the following manner: One opens the mouth of the condemned person with prongs, against his will, and one lights the wick and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 爪讚讜拽 诪注砖讛 讘讘转 讻讛谉 讗讞转 砖讝讬谞转讛 讜讛拽讬驻讜讛 讞讘讬诇讬 讝诪讜专讜转 讜砖专驻讜讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讘拽讬

Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok said: An incident occurred with regard to a certain priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery, and they wrapped her in bundles of branches and burned her, contrary to the process described in the mishna. The Sages said to him: That court did not act properly; they did so because the court at that time was not proficient in halakha.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 驻转讬诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 驻转讬诇讛 砖诇 讗讘专

GEMARA: What kind of wick is the mishna referring to? Rav Mattana says: A wick of lead, i.e., a long, thin piece of lead in the shape of a wick, which is melted and poured down into the intestines.

诪谞讗 诇谉 讗转讬讗 砖专讬驻讛 砖专讬驻讛 诪注讚转 拽专讞 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖专讬驻转 谞砖诪讛 讜讙讜祝 拽讬讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖专讬驻转 谞砖诪讛 讜讙讜祝 拽讬讬诐

From where do we derive that burning means this kind of death? It is derived from a verbal analogy between the burning that is described in the context of capital punishment (see Leviticus 21:9) and the burning described with regard to the assembly of Korah, when they were burned by God (see Numbers 17:4). Just as there, with regard to the assembly of Korah, they were killed by the burning of the soul within the body, but the body itself remained intact, so too here, the condemned one is executed by the burning of the soul, but the body remains intact. He is not executed by means of the burning of the body with wood, as in that case the body would be consumed.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 砖专讬驻讛 砖专讬驻讛 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖专讬驻转 谞砖诪讛 讜讙讜祝 拽讬讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖专讬驻转 谞砖诪讛 讜讙讜祝 拽讬讬诐

Rabbi Elazar says that there is a different source for this method of burning: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the burning that is described in this context and the burning that is described with regard to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron (see Leviticus 10:6). Just as there, Nadav and Avihu were killed by the burning of the soul, but the body remained intact, so too here, the execution is carried out by the burning of the soul, but the body remains intact.

诪讗谉 讚讬诇讬祝 诪注讚转 拽专讞 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 诪讞转讜转 讛讞讟讗讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讘谞驻砖转诐 砖谞砖诪转谉 谞砖专驻转 讜讙讜祝 拽讬讬诐

The Gemara asks: From where does the one who derives that burning means this kind of death from the assembly of Korah derive that their bodies were not burned? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: 鈥淎nd the firepans of these men who have sinned with their souls鈥 (Numbers 17:3), which indicates that only their souls were burned, but their bodies were intact.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讬讗 砖专讬驻讛 诪诪砖 讛讬讗 讜诪讗讬 讘谞驻砖转诐 砖谞转讞讬讬讘讜 砖专讬驻讛 注诇 注住拽讬 谞驻砖讜转诐

The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, who does not derive that burning means this kind of death from here, interpret the deaths of the assembly of Korah? The Gemara answers: That burning was actual burning of their bodies. And what is the meaning of the term: 鈥淲ith their souls鈥? It means that they were deemed liable to be killed by burning due to matters of sustaining their souls, i.e., they sinned because Korah helped them fulfill their bodily desires, and consequently they followed him.

讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘讞谞驻讬 诇注讙讬 诪注讜讙 讞专拽 注诇讬 砖谞讬诪讜 讘砖讘讬诇 讞谞讜驻讛 砖讛讞谞讬驻讜 诇拽专讞 注诇 注住拽讬 诇讙讬诪讛 讞专拽 注诇讬讛谉 砖专 砖诇 讙讬讛谞诐 砖谞讬讜

This latter explanation is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淲ith the flattering mockeries of spitefulness [maog] they gnash at me with their teeth鈥 (Psalms 35:16)? It means that because of the flattery of those people who flattered Korah over matters of eating, i.e., because of the food and drink that he would give them, the minister of Gehenna gnashed his teeth over them, as they eventually sinned and fell into his hands. The word maog is interpreted homiletically here as alluding to uga, cake.

讜诪讗谉 讚讬诇讬祝 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诪转讜 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讻注讬谉 诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: And from where does the one who derives that burning means this kind of death from the sons of Aaron derive that their bodies were not burned? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: 鈥淎nd fire came out from before the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 10:2). The term 鈥渁nd they died鈥 indicates that it was similar to a natural death, in which the body remains intact.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 砖专讬驻讛 诪诪砖 讛讜讗讬 讜诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诪转讜 讚讗转讞讬诇 讘讛讜 诪讙讜讗讬 讻注讬谉 诪讬转讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讚讜住转讗讬 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 讞讜讟讬谉 砖诇 讗砖 讬爪讗讜 诪讘讬转 拽讜讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜谞讞诇拽讜 诇讗专讘注 讜谞讻谞住讜 砖谞讬诐 讘讞讜讟诪讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘讞讜讟诪讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜砖专驻讜诐

The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, who does not derive that burning means this kind of death from here, interpret the death of the sons of Aaron? The Gemara answers: That burning was actual burning. And in that case, what is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd they died鈥? It means that the fire started from within them, and therefore it was similar to a natural death, which occurs within the person. As it is taught in a baraita: Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: Two threads of fire came out of the Holy of Holies and split into four, and two entered the nostrils of this one, and the other two entered the nostrils of that one, and the threads of fire burned them.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讜转讗讻诇 讗讜转诐 讗讜转诐 讜诇讗 讘讙讚讬讛诐

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd devoured them [vatokhal otam]鈥? The usage of the expanded term 鈥vatokhal otam,鈥 instead of the terser vatokhlem, indicates a limitation, i.e., only they were consumed, to the exclusion of their bodies. The Gemara answers: The verse means that the fire devoured 鈥渢hem,鈥 but not their clothes.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖专讬驻讛 诪诪砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖专讬驻讛 诪诪砖

The Gemara asks: And let us derive the correct method of execution by burning from the halakha of the bull offerings that are burned. Just as there, the reference is to actual burning, so too here, perhaps there should be actual burning.

诪住转讘专讗 诪讗讚诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 讗讚诐 讞讜讟讗 谞砖诪讛 驻讬讙讜诇

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that one should derive the halakha with regard to capital punishment from the death of a person, i.e., either from the assembly of Korah or the sons of Aaron, as they share common elements: They deal with a person, a sinner, and a soul that is taken through burning, i.e., the person dies as a result of the burning. Furthermore, the halakha of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul], is not relevant in either case, whereas it is relevant to bull offerings that are burned.

讗讚专讘讛 诪驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 诪讻砖讬专 诇讚讜专讜转

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, one should derive the halakha with regard to capital punishment from the bull offerings that are burned, as both enable the fulfillment of a mitzva, whereas the deaths of the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron were not mitzvot. Furthermore, both of these are fixed halakhot for all future generations, whereas the deaths of the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron were onetime incidents.

讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖讬谉

The Gemara answers: Those elements that are shared by capital punishment and the deaths of the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron are more numerous than the elements that are shared by capital punishment and the bulls that are burned. Therefore, the halakha is derived from the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron.

诪讗谉 讚讬诇讬祝 诪注讚转 拽专讞 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讛讛讜讗 砖专讬驻讛 诪诪砖 讛讜讗讬 讜谞讬诇祝 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to the one who derives this halakha from the assembly of Korah, what is the reason he does not derive it from the sons of Aaron? Because in his opinion that was actual burning. But if this is the case, let us derive from the death of the sons of Aaron that execution by burning should be performed with actual burning; why does he derive from the assembly of Korah that hot lead should be used?

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

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner one should select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. The method of burning described in the mishna is certainly faster and less painful than the burning of the entire body.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗讬讻讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: And since there is the halakha of Rav Na岣an, why do I need the verbal analogy? Even without this proof execution by burning would have been performed with hot lead, as it is a less painful form of death.

讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖专讬驻转 谞砖诪讛 讜讙讜祝 拽讬讬诐 诇讗讜 砖专讬驻讛 讛讬讗 讻诇诇 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 诇驻讬砖 诇讬讛 讞讘讬诇讬 讝诪讜专讜转 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖专讜祝 诇注讙诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Were it not for the verbal analogy, I would say that a death that includes the burning of the soul, but the body itself remains intact, is not burning at all, and that it does not fulfill the mitzva of execution by burning. And if it is necessary to alleviate the condemned one鈥檚 pain due to the halakha of 鈥淎nd you shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), let the court increase for him the bundles of branches, so that he will burn quicker. Therefore, the verbal analogy teaches us that even internal burning is regarded as burning, and once this has been established it is taken into consideration that he must be executed in the least painful way.

讜讻讘专 讛讬讜 诪砖讛 讜讗讛专谉 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜谞讚讘 讜讗讘讬讛讜讗 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讞专讬讛谉 讗诪专 诇讜 谞讚讘 诇讗讘讬讛讜讗 讗讬诪转讬 讬诪讜转讜 砖谞讬 讝拽谞讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讜讗谞讬 讜讗转讛 谞谞讛讬讙 讗转 讛讚讜专 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讛谞专讗讛 诪讬 拽讜讘专 讗转 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 谞驻讬砖讬 讙诪诇讬 住讘讬 讚讟注讬谞讬 诪砖讻讬 讚讛讜讙谞讬

Apropos the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, an aggadic midrash on this subject is quoted: And it had already happened that Moses and Aaron were walking on their way, and Nadav and Avihu were walking behind them, and the entire Jewish people were walking behind them. Nadav said to Avihu: When will it happen that these two old men will die and you and I will lead the generation, as we are their heirs? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: We shall see who buries whom. Rav Pappa says: This explains the adage that people say: Many are the old camels that are loaded with the skins of young camels.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

Rabbi Eliezer says:

诇诪讛 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讚讜诪讛 诇驻谞讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘转讞诇讛 讚讜诪讛 诇拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 讝讛讘 住讬驻专 讛讬诪谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诇拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 讻住祝 谞讛谞讛 诪诪谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诇拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 讞专砖 讻讬讜谉 砖谞砖讘专 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛

To what is a Torah scholar compared when he is standing before an ignoramus? At first, when he does not know him, the ignoramus considers him to be like a goblet [lekiton] of gold. Once he has conversed with him concerning mundane matters, he considers him to be like a goblet of silver, i.e., the stature of the Torah scholar is downgraded in the eyes of the ignoramus. Once the scholar has received benefit from the ignoramus, he considers him to be like an earthenware goblet, which once broken cannot be fixed.

讗讬诪专转讗 讘转 讟诇讬 讘转 讻讛谉 砖讝讬谞转讛 讛讜讗讬 讗拽驻讛 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讛 讞讘讬诇讬 讝诪讜专讜转 讜砖专驻讛

The Gemara relates: Imrata bat Talei was a priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery. Rav 岣ma bar Toviyya surrounded her with bundles of branches and burned her.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讟注讛 讘转专转讬 讟注讛 讘讚专讘 诪转谞讛 讜讟注讛 讘讚转谞讬讗 讜讘讗转 讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛诇讜讬诐 讜讗诇 讛砖驻讟 讗砖专 讬讛讬讛 讘讬诪讬诐 讛讛诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖 讻讛谉 讬砖 诪砖驻讟 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讻讛谉 讗讬谉 诪砖驻讟

Rav Yosef says: Rav 岣ma bar Toviyya erred with regard to two halakhot. He erred with regard to the ruling of Rav Mattana, i.e., that burning is performed using a wick of lead, and he erred with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge that will be in those days鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:9), that at a time when there is a priest serving in the Temple, i.e., when the Temple is built, there is judgment of capital cases. By inference, at a time when there is no priest, there is no judgment of capital cases.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诪注砖讛 讘讘转 讻讛谉 砖讝讬谞转讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 爪讚讜拽讬诐 讛讜讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: An incident occurred with regard to a priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery, and she was executed by actual burn-ing, and the Sages said to him that the court at that time was not proficient in halakha. Rav Yosef says: It was a court of the Sadducees, who interpreted the verse according to its straightforward meaning.

讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讛讻讬 讗讛讚专讜 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 讝讻讜专谞讬 讻砖讛讬讬转讬 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讜专讻讘 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 砖诇 讗讘讗 讜讛讘讬讗讜 讘转 讻讛谉 砖讝讬谞转讛 讜讛拽讬驻讜讛 讞讘讬诇讬 讝诪讜专讜转 讜砖专驻讜讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 拽讟谉 讛讬讬转 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诪谉 讛拽讟谉 砖谞讬 诪注砖讬诐 讛讜讜

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok say that to the Sages, and did the Sages answer him in that manner? But isn鈥檛 a different version of the exchange taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: I remember when I was a child, and was riding on my father鈥檚 shoulders. And they brought a priest鈥檚 daughter who had committed adultery, and surrounded her with bundles of branches and burned her. The Sages said to him: You were a minor at that time and one cannot bring proof from the testimony of a minor, as perhaps you did not understand the proceedings properly. The two versions of this exchange do not accord with each other. The Gemara answers: There were two separate incidents, and Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok testified with regard to both.

讛讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘专讬砖讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讚讜诇 讜诇讗 讗砖讙讞讜 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻砖讛讜讗 拽讟谉 讜讗砖讙讞讜 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: Which incident did he tell the Sages about first? If we say that first he told them about this first incident, i.e., the one that is recounted in the mishna, this is unreasonable; if he first told them about the incident that occurred when he was an adult, and they paid no attention to him, but rejected his statement by responding that the court was not proficient in halakha, would he tell them afterward about the incident that occurred when he was a small child and think that they would pay attention to him?

讗诇讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘专讬砖讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 拽讟谉 讛讬讬转 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讚讜诇 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讘拽讬

Rather, it is clear that he first told them about that incident, i.e., the one recounted in the baraita, and they said to him: You were a minor, and one cannot bring proof from the testimony of a minor. And then he told them about the incident that occurred when he was an adult, and they said to him: The court did so because the court at that time was not proficient in halakha.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讜转 讛谞讛专讙讬谉 讛讬讜 诪转讬讝讬谉 讗转 专讗砖讜 讘住讬讬祝 讻讚专讱 砖讛诪诇讻讜转 注讜砖讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞讬讜讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗转 专讗砖讜 注诇 讛住讚谉 讜拽讜爪抓 讘拽讜驻讬抓 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪讬转讛 诪谞讜讜诇转 诪讝讜

MISHNA: The mitzva of those who are killed, i.e., the process of execution by decapitation, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners cut off his head with a sword, the way that the monarchy does when a king sentences a person to death. Rabbi Yehuda says: This manner of execution is improper, as it degrades him. Rather, they place the head of the condemned on the block, and chop it off with a cleaver [bekofitz]. The Rabbis said to him: If you are concerned about his degradation, there is no death penalty more degrading than that. It is better for him to be executed in the manner described first.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讗祝 讗谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖诪讬转讛 诪谞讜讜诇转 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 壮讜讘讞拽转讬讛诐 诇讗 转诇讻讜壮

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:3): Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: I too, know that it is a degrading death, but what shall I do, as the Torah states: 鈥淎nd you shall not follow their statutes鈥 (Leviticus 18:3), i.e., it is prohibited to adopt the practices of the gentiles.

讜专讘谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 住讬讬祝 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讗 讙诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Since decapitation by the sword is written in the Torah, it is not from the gentiles that we learn it. This is Torah law, and the custom of the gentiles is not taken into consideration. It is of no import that they have a corresponding type of execution.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇 讛诪诇讻讬诐 讜诇讗 诪讚专讻讬 讛讗诪讜专讬 讛讬讻讬 砖专驻讬谞谉 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讘讞拽转讬讛诐 诇讗 转诇讻讜 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 砖专讬驻讛 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘诪砖专驻讜转 讗讘讜转讬讱 讜讙讜壮 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 住讬讬祝 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讗 讙诪专讬谞谉

As, if you do not say so, that a Jewish custom is not forbidden even if the gentiles have the same custom, then that which is taught in a baraita poses a difficulty. The baraita teaches: One burns vessels and clothes over the deaths of kings as an expression of grief, and this is not forbidden for being of the ways of the Amorites. How can we perform this burning? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd you shall not follow their statutes鈥? Rather, since burning items over the death of a king is written in the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淎nd with the burnings of your fathers, the first kings who came before you, so shall they make a burning for you鈥 (Jeremiah 34:5), it is not from the gentiles that we learn it. And here too, since decapitation by the sword is written in the Torah, it is not from them that we learn it.

讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 讘讗讬讚讱 驻讬专拽讬谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛谞讛专讙讬谉 讛专讜爪讞 讜讗谞砖讬 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 讘砖诇诪讗 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 诇驻讬 讞专讘 讗诇讗 专讜爪讞 诪谞诇谉

搂 The Gemara asks: And with regard to that which we learned in a mishna in another chapter of this tractate (76b): These transgressors are those who are killed by decapitation: The murderer and the people of an idolatrous city, there is a difficulty. Granted, the people of an idolatrous city are executed in this manner, as it is written concerning them: 鈥淵ou shall smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:16). But with regard to a murderer, from where do we derive that he is executed by decapitation?

讚转谞讬讗 壮谞拽诐 讬谞拽诐壮 壮谞拽讬诪讛壮 讝讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛讜讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 壮讜讛讘讗转讬 注诇讬讻诐 讞专讘 谞拽诪转 谞拽诐 讘专讬转壮 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 谞拽讬诪讛 讝讜 住讬讬祝

The Gemara answers that it is derived as it is taught in a baraita: It is stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man smites his slave or his maidservant by the staff and he dies under his hand, he shall be avenged鈥 (Exodus 21:20). Prima facie, I do not know what this vengeance is referring to. When it says: 鈥淎nd I will bring upon you the sword avenging the vengeance of the covenant鈥 (Leviticus 26:25), you must say that vengeance is decapitation by the sword.

讜讗讬诪讗 讚讘专讬讝 诇讬讛 诪讬讘专讝 诇驻讬 讞专讘 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the executioner should stab him with a sword, rather than decapitate him? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to the people of an idolatrous city: 鈥淲ith the edge of the sword,鈥 indicating that the execution should be administered with the edge of the sword and not its point.

讜讗讬诪讗 讚注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讙讬住讟专讗 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

The Gemara asks: But say that the executioner should cut him in half [gistera], down the middle of his body. The Gemara answers that Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, one should select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Cutting his body in half is not a compassionate manner of execution.

讗砖讻讞谉 讚拽讟诇 注讘讚讗 讘专 讞讜专讬谉 诪谞讗 诇谉

The Gemara asks: We have found proof that one who killed a Canaanite slave is executed by decapitation. But from where do we derive that one who kills a freeman is executed in the same manner?

讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 拽讟诇 注讘讚讗 讘住讬讬祝 讘专 讞讜专讬谉 讘讞谞拽

The Gemara answers: But is it not inferred a fortiori? If one who killed a Canaanite slave is executed by the sword, should one who killed a freeman be executed merely by strangulation?

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞谞拽 拽诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞谞拽 讞诪讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

This Gemara rejects this answer: This works out well according to the one who says that strangulation is a more lenient type of capital punishment than decapitation. But according to the one who says that strangulation is more severe than decapitation, what can be said? It is possible that one who murdered a freeman is in fact executed by strangulation.

谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚转谞讬讗 壮讜讗转讛 转讘注专 讛讚诐 讛谞拽讬 诪拽专讘讱壮 讛讜拽砖讜 讻诇 砖讜驻讻讬 讚诪讬诐 诇注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘住讬讬祝 讜诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘住讬讬祝 讜诪谉 讛爪讜讗专

The Gemara answers: The mishna derives it from that which is taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd so shall you put away the innocent blood from your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:9), that all spillers of blood are compared to the heifer whose neck is broken as atonement for an unresolved murder. Just as there, the heifer is killed by the sword and at the neck, so too here, murderers are executed by the sword and at the neck.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘拽讜驻讬抓 讜诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽讜驻讬抓 讜诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 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

The Gemara challenges: If so, perhaps it should be derived that just as there, the heifer is decapitated with a cleaver and at the nape of the neck, so too here, murderers should be decapitated with a cleaver and at the nape of the neck. The Gemara answers that Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, one should select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Although the type of capital punishment is derived from the heifer whose neck is broken, the most compassionate method of decapitation is selected.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讜转 讛谞讞谞拽讬谉 讛讬讜 诪砖拽注讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讝讘诇 注讚 讗专讻讜讘讜转讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 住讜讚专 拽砖讛 诇转讜讱 讛专讻讛 讜讻讜专讱 注诇 爪讜讗专讜 讝讛 诪讜砖讱 讗爪诇讜 讜讝讛 诪讜砖讱 讗爪诇讜 注讚 砖谞驻砖讜 讬讜爪讗转

MISHNA: The mitzva of those who are strangled is carried out in the following manner: The agents of the court submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and one of them places a rough scarf within a soft one, and wraps it around his neck. This one, i.e., one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward him, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward him, until the soul of the condemned one departs.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讗讬砖壮 驻专讟 诇拽讟谉 壮讗砖专 讬谞讗祝 讗转 讗砖转 讗讬砖壮 驻专讟 诇讗砖转 拽讟谉 壮讗砖转 专注讛讜壮 驻专讟 诇讗砖转 讗讞专讬诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd a man who commits adultery with another man鈥檚 wife, even he who commits adultery with his neighbor鈥檚 wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 20:10). The term: 鈥淎 man,鈥 is interpreted as excluding a minor boy who committed adultery before he came of age. The phrase: 鈥淲ho commits adultery with another man鈥檚 wife,鈥 is interpreted as excluding the wife of a minor boy; marriage to a minor is not considered halakhic marriage. 鈥淗is neighbor鈥檚 wife鈥 excludes the wife of another, i.e., a gentile, who is not referred to as 鈥渉is neighbor.鈥

壮诪讜转 讬讜诪转壮 讘讞谞拽 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讞谞拽 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讞转 诪讻诇 诪讬转讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讗诪专转 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诪讬转讛 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讗讬谉 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇诪讜砖讻讛 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

鈥淪hall be put to death鈥 means death by strangulation. Do you say that his execution is by strangulation, or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty stated in the Torah? You must say that it is by strangulation, as everywhere that the death penalty is stated in the Torah without specification you may not take it to be more stringent with regard to it, i.e., to mean that the sinner should be sentenced to a severe type of execution; rather, you must take it to be more lenient with regard to it, i.e., that a lenient type of execution should be applied. Consequently, the sinner is sentenced to be executed by strangulation, which is the least severe type of capital punishment. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 拽诇讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讞谞拽

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yonatan says: It is not because strangulation is the most lenient type of capital punishment; rather, there is a principle that every death penalty stated in the Torah without specification is nothing other than strangulation, whereas the other types of capital punishment must be stated explicitly in the verse.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 诪讬转讛 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 诪讬转讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 诪讛 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诪讬转讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 专讜砖诐 讗祝 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 诪讬转讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 专讜砖诐

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan: Death at the hand of Heaven is stated in the Torah, and death at the hands of a person, i.e., court-imposed capital punishment, is stated in the Torah. Just as the death at the hand of Heaven that is stated in the Torah is a death that leaves no external mark, so too, the death at the hands of a person that is stated in the Torah is a death that leaves no external mark, i.e., strangulation.

讜讗讬诪讗 砖专讬驻讛 诪讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘转 讻讛谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讛讗 诇讗讜 讘转 砖专讬驻讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: But why not say that perhaps it is referring to execution by burning, which also leaves no external mark? The Gemara answers: From the fact that the Merciful One states explicitly that a priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery is executed by burning one can learn by inference that this other woman who committed adultery is not liable to be executed by burning, but rather by a different type of execution that does not leave a mark, i.e., strangulation.

Scroll To Top