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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 25, 2017 | 讛壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讞

  • 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 shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sanhedrin 71

More details that narrow the possibility of the rebellious son are brought. 聽A debate ensues regarding whether or not there was or ever will be a rebellious son. 聽A similar debate is brought regarding a city who all worship idols and a leprous house. 聽What is the exact process by which one can be convicted as a rebellious child and will get聽stoned? 聽If the son is brought to court but then runs away and by the time they catch him, he is no longer within the age range of one who can be killed for being a rebellious child, what happens? 聽It depends on whether he was convicted before he ran away. 聽A halacha is brought regarding a ben Noach who curses God and then converts – he is now innocent as the laws for him have changed. 聽Is it or is it not similar to the case in our mishna? 聽Various sources are brought as an attempt to prove or disprove this halacha but all are unsuccessful.


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

讞讬讬讘

he is liable for entering the Temple while intoxicated.

讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讻诇 讻诇 诪讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 讘砖专 砖转讛 讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讜诇讗 砖转讛 讬讬谉 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 壮讝讜诇诇 讜住讘讗壮

搂 The mishna teaches that the boy does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he actually eats meat and drinks wine. The Sages taught in a baraita: If he ate any other food but did not eat meat, or if he drank any other beverage but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he actually eats meat and drinks wine, as it is stated: 鈥淭his son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard.鈥

讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 壮讗诇 转讛讬 讘住讘讗讬 讬讬谉 讘讝诇诇讬 讘砖专 诇诪讜壮 讜讗讜诪专 壮讻讬 住讘讗 讜讝讜诇诇 讬讜专砖 讜拽专注讬诐 转诇讘讬砖 谞讜诪讛壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 讛讬砖谉 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 转讜专转讜 谞注砖讬转 诇讜 拽专注讬诐 拽专注讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜拽专注讬诐 转诇讘讬砖 谞讜诪讛

And although there is no explicit proof to the matter, there is an allusion to the matter in another verse, as it is stated: 鈥淏e not among wine drinkers, among gluttonous eaters of meat鈥 (Proverbs 23:20). And the verse states: 鈥淔or the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty, and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags鈥 (Proverbs 23:21). That is to say, a person who is a glutton and a drunkard, and sleeps a lot due to his excessive eating and drinking, will end up poor and dressed in rags. Rabbi Zeira expounds the same verse and says: With regard to anyone who sleeps in the study hall, his Torah shall become tattered, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.鈥

诪转谞讬壮 讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讘讬讜 诪砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讞专讬诐 诪砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讙谞讜讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讬讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讞专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讙谞讜讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诪砖诇 讗诪讜

MISHNA: If he stole that which belonged to his father and ate on his father鈥檚 property, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on the property of others, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on his father鈥檚 property, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he steals that which belonged to his father and eats on the property of others. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he steals that which belonged to his father and that which belonged to his mother.

讙诪壮 讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讘讬讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讻讬讞 诇讬讛 讘注讬转

GEMARA: The Gemara explains the reasons for the various halakhot taught in the mishna: If he stole that which belonged to his father and ate on his father鈥檚 property, even though this is accessible to him and it is easy for him to steal, he is afraid that his father will see him eating what he had stolen, and therefore he will not be drawn after his action to further evil.

诪砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讞专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘注讬转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讬讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讘讬讜 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讬讛 讜讘注讬转

If he stole that which belonged to others and ate on the property of others, even though he is not afraid of them, as they neither know him nor watch over him, this theft is not easily accessible to him, as it is performed on someone else鈥檚 property, and therefore he will not be drawn to additional sin. And all the more so if he stole that which belonged to others and ate on his father鈥檚 property, in which case it is not accessible to him, and he is also afraid of his father.

注讚 砖讬讙谞讜讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讬讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讞专讬诐 讚砖讻讬讞 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬转

Therefore, he is not liable unless he steals that which belonged to his father and eats on the property of others, in which case it is easily accessible to him, and he is not afraid, and there is concern that he will be drawn after his action to additional sin.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讙谞讜讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诪砖诇 讗诪讜 讗诪讜 诪谞讗 诇讛 诪讛 砖拽谞转讛 讗砖讛 拽谞讛 讘注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住注讜讚讛 讛诪讜讻谞转 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that he is not liable as a stubborn and rebellious son unless he steals that which belonged to his father and that which belonged to his mother. The Gemara asks: With regard to his mother, from where does she have independently owned property that her son can steal? The basis for this question is the halakha that anything that a woman acquires is acquired by her husband. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says in answer to this question: The mishna is referring to a case where the boy stole food from a meal that had been prepared for his father and for his mother. In such a case the husband grants his wife ownership of the food that she will eat over the course of her meal.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞谉 讘专 诪讜诇讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽谞讛 讘砖专 讘讝讜诇 讜讬讗讻诇 讬讬谉 讘讝讜诇 讜讬砖转讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讚诪讬 住注讜讚讛 讛诪讜讻谞转 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nan bar Molada say that Rav Huna says: A stubborn and rebellious son is not liable unless he purchases inexpensive meat and eats it, and he purchases inexpensive wine and drinks it, which indicates that he becomes liable only if he steals money, not if he steals the actual meat and wine? Rather, say that the boy stole from money set aside for a meal that was to be prepared for his father and for his mother.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讗拽谞讬 诇讛 讗讞专 讜讗诪专 诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讘注诇讬讱 专砖讜转 讘讛谉

The Gemara presents another answer to the question posed concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: If you wish, say instead that another person gave property to the mother and said to her: This shall be yours on the condition that your husband shall have no right to it. In such a case, the woman acquires the property for herself and her husband does not acquire it. Therefore, it is possible for the son to steal from his mother鈥檚 property.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 专讜爪讛 讜讗诪讜 讗讬谞讛 专讜爪讛 讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 讜讗诪讜 专讜爪讛 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讬转讛 讗诪讜 专讗讜讬讛 诇讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛

MISHNA: If his father wishes to have him punished but his mother does not wish that, or if his father does not wish to have him punished but his mother wishes that, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless they both wish that he be punished. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not suited for his father, the two being an inappropriate match, as the Gemara will explain, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讜讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗讘讜讛 讗讘讜讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诪讬讛 讗诪讬讛 谞讬谞讛讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he speaks of the mother as being not suited for the father? If we say that due to their union they are among those who are liable to receive karet, in which case the marriage does not take effect, and certainly if the union puts them in the category of those who are liable to receive one of the types of court-imposed death penalty, in which case the marriage also does not take effect, there is a difficulty: Why should it matter if they are not married? Ultimately, his father is still his father and his mother is still his mother, and the verses concerning the stubborn and rebellious son can be fulfilled.

讗诇讗 讘砖讜讛 诇讗讘讬讜 拽讗诪专 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讬转讛 讗诪讜 砖讜讛 诇讗讘讬讜 讘拽讜诇 讜讘诪专讗讛 讜讘拽讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬谞谞讜 砖诪注 讘拽诇谞讜 诪讚拽讜诇 讘注讬谞谉 砖讜讬谉 诪专讗讛 讜拽讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 砖讜讬谉

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda is saying that the boy鈥檚 mother must be identical to his father in several aspects. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not identical to his father in voice, appearance, and height, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? As the verse states: 鈥淗e will not obey our voices [kolenu]鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that they both have the same voice. And since we require that they be identical in voice, we also require that they be identical in appearance and height.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 注转讬讚 诇讛讬讜转 讜诇诪讛 谞讻转讘 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future, as it is impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning, this being an aspect of the Torah that has only theoretical value. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who requires that the parents have certain identical characteristics, making it virtually impossible to apply the halakha.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讻诇 讝讛 转专讟讬诪专 讘砖专 讜砖转讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 讬讬谉 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇住拽诇讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 注转讬讚 诇讛讬讜转 讜诇诪讛 谞讻转讘 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬讜 讜讬砖讘转讬 注诇 拽讘专讜

If you wish, say instead that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: And is it simply due to the fact that the boy ate a tarteimar of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine that his father and his mother shall take him out to stone him? Rather, there has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. Rabbi Yonatan says: This is not so, as I saw one. I was once in a place where a stubborn and rebellious son was condemned to death, and I even sat on his grave after he was executed.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 诇讗 讛讬转讛 讜诇讗 注转讬讚讛 诇讛讬讜转 讜诇诪讛 谞讻转讘讛 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注讬专 砖讬砖 讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讝讜讝讛 讗讞转 讗讬谞讛 谞注砖讬转 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转

The Gemara raises a similar question: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been an idolatrous city and there will never be one in the future, as it is virtually impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was the passage relating to an idolatrous city written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Any city that has even one mezuza or any other sacred scroll cannot become an idolatrous city. It is difficult to imagine an entire city without even one mezuza.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗转 讻诇 砖诇诇讛 转拽讘抓 讗诇 转讜讱 专讞讘讛 讜砖专驻转 讘讗砖 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讝讜讝讛 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转注砖讜谉 讻谉 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬讛 讜讬砖讘转讬 注诇 转讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a city that has even one mezuza cannot become an idolatrous city? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the open space of the city, and shall burn with fire both the city and the entire plunder taken in it鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:17). And since if there is a mezuza there it is impossible to burn all the contents of the city, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their asherim with fire鈥This you shall not do so to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:3鈥4). It is derived from this verse that it is prohibited to destroy a sacred item such as a mezuza. Therefore, in a city that has even one mezuza, it is impossible to fulfill the halakhot of an idolatrous city, as not all of its contents may be burned. Rabbi Yonatan says: This is not so, as I once saw an idolatrous city that was condemned to destruction, and I even sat on its ruins.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 诇讗 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 注转讬讚 诇讛讬讜转 讜诇诪讛 谞讻转讘 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 注讚 砖讬专讗讛 讻砖转讬 讙专讬住讬谉 注诇 砖转讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讘砖转讬 讻转诇讬诐 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讗专讻讜 讻砖谞讬 讙专讬住讬谉 讜专讞讘讜 讻讙专讬住

The Gemara asks another similar question: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a house afflicted with leprosy of the house and there will never be one in the future. And why, then, was the passage relating to leprosy of the house written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 12:3) that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: A house never becomes impure with leprosy until a mark about the size of two split beans is seen on two stones in two walls that form a corner between them, the mark being about two split beans in length and about one split bean in width. It is difficult to imagine that such a precise situation will ever occur.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻转讬讘 拽讬专 讜讻转讬讘 拽讬专转 讗讬讝讛讜 拽讬专 砖讛讜讗 讻拽讬专讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 拽专谉 讝讜讬转

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that a house does not become impure unless it has a mark precisely in the corner? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall look at the leprous mark, and, behold, if the leprous mark be in the walls of the house, in greenish or reddish depressions, which in sight are lower than the wall鈥 (Leviticus 14:37). In one part of the verse it is written 鈥渨all,鈥 and in another part of the verse it is written 鈥渨alls.鈥 Which wall is like two walls? You must say this is a corner.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讛 讘转讞讜诐 注讝讛 讜讛讬讜 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讞讜专讘转讗 住讙讬专转讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬砖 讻驻专 注讻讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讻转讬 诇讙诇讬诇 讜专讗讬转讬 诪拽讜诐 砖诪爪讬讬谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗诪专讜 讗讘谞讬诐 诪谞讜讙注讜转 驻讬谞讜 诇砖诐

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: There was a place in the area of Gaza, and it was called the leprous ruin; that is to say, it was the ruin of a house that had been afflicted with leprosy. Apparently, then, leprosy of the house has existed. Rabbi Shimon of the village of Akko said: I once went to the Galilee and I saw a place that was being marked off as an impure place, and they said that stones afflicted with leprosy were cast there. This too indicates that a house afflicted with leprosy has existed.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讙讬讚诐 讗讜 讞讬讙专 讗讜 讗诇诐 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 砖谞讗诪专 讜转驻砖讜 讘讜 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讜诇讗 讙讚诪讬谉 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讗转讜 讜诇讗 讞讙专讬谉 讜讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 讗诇诪讬谉 讘谞谞讜 讝讛 讜诇讗 住讜诪讬谉 讗讬谞谞讜 砖诪注 讘拽诇谞讜 讜诇讗 讞专砖讬谉

MISHNA: If one of the parents was without hands, or lame, or mute, or blind, or deaf, their son does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, 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. And they shall say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:19鈥20). The Sages derive: 鈥淭hen shall his father and his mother lay hold of him,鈥 but not people without hands, who cannot do this. 鈥淎nd bring him out,鈥 but not lame people, who cannot walk. 鈥淎nd they shall say,鈥 but not mutes. 鈥淭his son of ours,鈥 but not blind people, who cannot point to their son and say 鈥渢his.鈥 鈥淗e will not obey our voices,鈥 but not deaf people, who cannot hear whether or not he declined to obey them.

诪转专讬谉 讘讜 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 讜诪诇拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讞讝专 讜拽诇拽诇 谞讚讜谉 讘注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞住拽诇 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖诐 砖诇砖讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘谞谞讜 讝讛 讝讛讜 砖诇拽讛 讘驻谞讬讻诐

After he is brought before the elders of the city, he is admonished before three people and then they flog him for having stolen. If he sins again, he is judged by a court of twenty-three judges, but he is not stoned unless the first three judges before whom he had been flogged are present there, as it is stated: 鈥淭his son of ours,鈥 this is the son who was already flogged before you.

讙诪壮 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬谞谉 拽专讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗

GEMARA: The Gemara draws a conclusion from the mishna: You can learn from the mishna that we require that a verse be fulfilled precisely as it is written, in strict conformity with its literal sense, and not in looser or more expansive fashion. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There is no proof from here. Here it is different,

讚讻讜诇讬讛 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗

since the entire verse is superfluous. The verse鈥檚 description of how the father and mother bring their son out appears to be unnecessary, and therefore each element in the verse limits the halakha in a precise manner. When a verse is not superfluous, it is not strictly interpreted.

讜诪转专讬谉 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘转专讬 住讙讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪转专讬谉 讘讜 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪诇拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛

搂 The mishna teaches that after the rebellious son is brought before the elders of the city, he is admonished before three people. The Gemara asks: Why do I need him to be admonished before three people? Two witnesses should suffice, as in all other matters of halakha. Abaye says: This is what the mishna is saying: He is admonished before two people, who serve as witnesses, and he is flogged before three people, who constitute a court.

诪诇拽讜转 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘讗 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇诪讚谞讜 讜讬住专讜 诪讜讬住专讜 讜讬住专讜 诪讘谉 讜讘谉 诪讘谉 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 讘谉 讛讻讜转 讛专砖注

The Gemara asks: Where is it written that lashes are administered to a stubborn and rebellious son? There is no explicit mention of lashes in the verse. The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Abbahu said in another context, as Rabbi Abbahu says: We learned the meaning of the word 鈥渃hastise鈥 as stated with regard to a defamer: 鈥淎nd the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:18), by means of a verbal analogy from the word 鈥渃hastise鈥 stated with regard to a rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18). And the meaning of the word 鈥渃hastise鈥 in the latter verse is derived from the word 鈥渟on鈥 that appears in the same verse. And the meaning of the word 鈥渟on [ben]鈥 with regard to a rebellious son is derived from the similar word bin stated with regard to lashes: 鈥淭hen it shall be if the wicked man deserves [bin] to be flogged鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2). Consequently, the chastisement mentioned with regard to both a defamer and a rebellious son involves flogging.

讞讝专 讜拽诇拽诇 谞讬讚讜谉 讘注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讝讛 讜诇讗 住讜诪讬谉 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 讘谞谞讜 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讘谞谞讜 讝讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The mishna teaches: If he sins again, he is judged by a court of twenty-three judges, which must include the three judges before whom he was brought initially, as it is stated: 鈥淭his son of ours,鈥 this is the son who was already flogged before you. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 that verse needed for the derivation mentioned earlier: 鈥淭his son of ours,鈥 but not blind people, who cannot point to their son and say 鈥渢his鈥? The Gemara answers: If so, that these words serve only to teach that the original judges must also be present, the verse should have written: He is our son, which would indicate: He who was already flogged before you. What is the meaning of: 鈥淭his son of ours鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it: That the three original judges must also be present at the second trial, and that the son of blind parents cannot become a stubborn and rebellious son.

诪转谞讬壮 讘专讞 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讬祝 讝拽谉 讛转讞转讜谉 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘专讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讬祝 讝拽谉 讛转讞转讜谉 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: If the rebellious son ran away before he was sentenced, and afterward, before he was caught, his lower beard grew around, he is exempt from the death penalty. Once his lower beard grows around his genitals, he can no longer be judged as a stubborn and rebellious son. But if he ran away only after he was sentenced, and afterward, by the time he was caught, his lower beard had already grown around, he is liable to receive the death penalty. Once he is sentenced to death his sentence remains in force.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 谞讞 砖讘讬专讱 讗转 讛砖诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讙讬讬专 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖转谞讛 讚讬谞讜 谞砖转谞讛 诪讬转转讜

GEMARA: Rabbi 岣nina says: If a descendant of Noah blessed, i.e., cursed, the name of God, and afterward he converted to Judaism, he is exempt from punishment, since his trial procedure changed, and the death penalty to which he is subject also changed. A descendant of Noah is tried by a single judge, and he can be sentenced to death on the basis of the testimony of a single witness even with-out having been forewarned; whereas a Jew is tried by a court of twenty-three and can be executed only on the basis of the testimony of two witnesses, and this only after having been forewarned. A descendant of Noah is killed by the sword for this transgression, whereas a Jew is killed by stoning.

谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 讘专讞 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讬祝 讝拽谉 讛转讞转讜谉 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the mishna supports him: If the rebellious son ran away before he was sentenced, and afterward, before he was caught, his lower beard grew around, he is exempt from the death penalty? What is the reason for this exemption? Isn鈥檛 it because we say: Since his legal status has changed, his liability has also changed?

诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗讬 注讘讚 讛砖转讗 诇讗讜 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this claim: No, it is different here, with regard to a stubborn and rebellious son, as were he now, after he grew his lower beard, to perform the same actions that render one liable as a rebellious son, he would not be fit for execution, and therefore he is exempt. This is different from a gentile who cursed God鈥檚 name and then converted, as even if he cursed God after having converted, he would still be liable to receive the death penalty.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诐 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘专讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讬祝 讝拽谉 讛转讞转讜谉 讞讬讬讘 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 拽讗诪专转 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讙讘专讗 拽讟讬诇讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the latter half of the mishna: But if he ran away only after he was sentenced, and afterward, by the time he was caught, his lower beard had already grown around, he is liable to receive the death penalty. This indicates that even though his legal status has changed, he is nevertheless executed. The Gemara rejects this argument: There is no proof from here; you speak of a case where he was already sentenced to death. Once he was already sentenced, he is considered a dead man and his verdict can no longer be changed.

转讗 砖诪注 讘谉 谞讞 砖讛讻讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讘讗 注诇 讗砖转 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞转讙讬讬专 驻讟讜专 注砖讛 讻谉 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜谞转讙讬讬专 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from what was stated in a baraita: If a descendant of Noah struck and killed another gentile or engaged in intercourse with the wife of another gentile, and he then converted to Judaism, he is exempt. But if he did this to an Israelite, killing a Jew or engaging in intercourse with the wife of a Jew, and then converted, he is liable. But why should this be so? Let us say that since his legal status changed, his liability changed as well, and therefore he should no longer be subject to the death penalty. The baraita indicates that this rationale is not accepted.

讚讬谞讜 讜诪讬转转讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 讚讬谞讜 讗讬砖转谞讬 诪讬转转讜 诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬

The Gemara refutes this proof: There is no comparison between the cases, because in order to nullify one鈥檚 death penalty we require a change both in his trial procedure and in the specific death penalty to which he is subject. But this descendant of Noah, though his trial procedure changed, the death penalty to which he is subject did not change.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讜爪讞 诪注讬拽专讗 住讬讬祝 讜讛砖转讗 住讬讬祝 讗诇讗 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诪注讬拽专讗 住讬讬祝 讜讛砖转讗 讞谞拽

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, with regard to the case of a murderer, this answer is understandable, as initially, while he was still a gentile, he was subject to death by the sword, and now that he is a Jew he is still subject to death by the sword. Consequently, there is no change in the punishment to which he is subject. But with regard to the case of one who engaged in intercourse with a married woman, initially when he was still a gentile he was subject to death by the sword, but now that he is a Jew he is subject to death by strangulation. Accordingly, there is a change both in his trial procedure and in the type of capital punishment to which he is subject.

讘谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara answers: The case of a married woman mentioned here involves a man who engaged in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, so that in both this case, where he engaged in intercourse with her when he was still a descendant of Noah, and in that case, where he did so when he was already a Jew, he is subject to death by stoning. Since there was no change in the type of capital punishment to which he is subject, he remains liable and is executed.

讜讛讗 注砖讛 讻谉 讘讬砖专讗诇 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讗砖转 讞讘讬专讜 拽转谞讬

The Gemara raises an objection: But the baraita teaches the case where he did this to an Israelite, i.e., engaged in intercourse with the wife of a Jew, similar to the case where he engaged in intercourse with the wife of another gentile. Both cases seem to be addressing identical circumstances, and the unique halakha governing a betrothed young woman exists only for Jews, not for descendants of Noah. Accordingly, the baraita must be discussing the case of a fully married woman.

讗诇讗 拽诇讛 讘讞诪讜专讛 诪讬砖讱 砖讬讬讻讗

Rather, the lenient punishment is included in the severe one. If initially, when he was a gentile, he was liable to receive a more severe punishment, and now that he is a Jew he is liable to receive a more lenient punishment, the lenient punishment is included in the severe one, and he remains liable to receive the lenient punishment. By contrast, if the punishment that he is now liable to receive is more severe, he is exempt from all punishment.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 住讬讬祝 讞诪讜专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讞谞拽 讞诪讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that death by the sword is more severe than death by strangulation. Therefore, if a descendant of Noah engaged in intercourse with a married woman, so that he was subject to death by the sword, and then he converted to Judaism, so that his sentence was lightened to death by strangulation, he is still executed. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that death by strangulation is more severe than death by the sword, what can be said? The convert should now be exempt from all punishment.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讚讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讞谞拽

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of the school of Menashe, who says: Any death mentioned in connection with the descendants of Noah is nothing other than death by strangulation, and not death by the sword. Accordingly, if a descendant of Noah engaged in intercourse with a married woman, and he then converted, his punishment did not become more severe with his conversion; rather, it stayed the same, death by strangulation, and he is still executed.

讘砖诇诪讗 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诪注讬拽专讗 讞谞拽 讜讛砖转讗 讞谞拽 讗诇讗 专讜爪讞 诪注讬拽专讗 讞谞拽 讜讛砖转讗 住讬讬祝 拽诇讛 讘讞诪讜专讛 诪讬砖讱 砖讬讬讻讗

The Gemara challenges: Granted, with regard to the case of a married woman, this answer is understandable. Initially, when he was still a descendant of Noah, he was subject to death by strangulation, and now, after his conversion, he is subject to death by strangulation. But as for a murderer, initially, when he was still a descendant of Noah, according to the tanna of the school of Menashe he was subject to death by strangulation, but now, after his conversion, he is subject to death by the sword. The Gemara explains: The lenient punishment is included in the severe one, and according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, death by strangulation is more severe than death by the sword. Consequently, he is executed.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 住专讞讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讙专讛 转讬讚讜谉 讘讞谞拽 讘住拽讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讻讗 讚讗讬砖转谞讬 诇讙诪专讬 讛讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇转谞讗 转谞讬 转讬讚讜谉 讘住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the following baraita supports Rabbi 岣nina: If a betrothed young woman sinned by committing adultery, and afterward she reached her majority, at which time she was brought to trial, she is sentenced to death by strangulation like any other betrothed grown woman who commits adultery. What is the reason that she is not sentenced to death by stoning, the punishment imposed upon a betrothed young woman who commits adultery? Is it not that since her legal status changed, her liability changed as well? And all the more so here, in the case of the descendant of Noah who converted, where he changed completely from a gentile to a Jew, his sentence should change. The Gemara rejects this argument: No proof can be derived from here, as doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say to the tanna who taught this baraita before him: Emend your version of the baraita and teach: She is sentenced to death by stoning.

诪转谞讬壮 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 谞讬讚讜谉 注诇 砖诐 住讜驻讜 讬诪讜转 讝讻讗讬 讜讗诇 讬诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 砖诪讬转转谉 砖诇 专砖注讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛谉 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 专注 诇讛谉 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐

MISHNA: A stubborn and rebellious son is sen-tenced to death not because of the severity of the transgression that he already committed but on account of his ultimate end, because a boy of his nature will grow up to lead an immoral life, and it is better that he should die while he is still innocent, before causing excessive harm, and not die after he becomes guilty. This is because the death of the wicked is beneficial to them, because they can no longer sin, and it is also beneficial to the world, which is now rid of those who do it harm. Conversely, the death of the righteous is detrimental to them, as they can no longer engage in the performance of mitzvot, and it is also detrimental to the world, as the righteous are now absent from it.

讬讬谉 讜砖讬谞讛 诇专砖注讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛谉 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讜诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 专注 诇讛谉 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐

By way of association, the mishna continues: The wine and sleep of the wicked are beneficial to them and beneficial to the world, as when they are sleeping or under the influence of wine, they do not cause harm to others. And, conversely, the wine and sleep of the righteous are detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, as wine and sleep prevent them from engaging in their good deeds.

驻讬讝讜专 诇专砖注讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛谉 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讜诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 专注 诇讛谉 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐 讻谞讜住 诇专砖注讬诐 专注 诇讛谉 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐 讜诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛谉 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 砖拽讟 诇专砖注讬诐 专注 诇讛谉 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐 诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛谉 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐

The dispersal of the wicked, so that they are not found in close proximity to each other, is beneficial to them, as they are less likely to provoke each other to sin, and it is beneficial to the world. The dispersal of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world. The assembly of the wicked in one place is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, while the assembly of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world. The tranquility of the wicked is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, while the tranquility of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world.

  • 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 shleima 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 71

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 71

讞讬讬讘

he is liable for entering the Temple while intoxicated.

讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讻诇 讻诇 诪讗讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讻诇 讘砖专 砖转讛 讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讜诇讗 砖转讛 讬讬谉 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜讬砖转讛 讬讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 壮讝讜诇诇 讜住讘讗壮

搂 The mishna teaches that the boy does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he actually eats meat and drinks wine. The Sages taught in a baraita: If he ate any other food but did not eat meat, or if he drank any other beverage but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he actually eats meat and drinks wine, as it is stated: 鈥淭his son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard.鈥

讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 壮讗诇 转讛讬 讘住讘讗讬 讬讬谉 讘讝诇诇讬 讘砖专 诇诪讜壮 讜讗讜诪专 壮讻讬 住讘讗 讜讝讜诇诇 讬讜专砖 讜拽专注讬诐 转诇讘讬砖 谞讜诪讛壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 讛讬砖谉 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 转讜专转讜 谞注砖讬转 诇讜 拽专注讬诐 拽专注讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜拽专注讬诐 转诇讘讬砖 谞讜诪讛

And although there is no explicit proof to the matter, there is an allusion to the matter in another verse, as it is stated: 鈥淏e not among wine drinkers, among gluttonous eaters of meat鈥 (Proverbs 23:20). And the verse states: 鈥淔or the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty, and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags鈥 (Proverbs 23:21). That is to say, a person who is a glutton and a drunkard, and sleeps a lot due to his excessive eating and drinking, will end up poor and dressed in rags. Rabbi Zeira expounds the same verse and says: With regard to anyone who sleeps in the study hall, his Torah shall become tattered, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.鈥

诪转谞讬壮 讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讘讬讜 诪砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讞专讬诐 诪砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讙谞讜讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讬讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讞专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讙谞讜讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诪砖诇 讗诪讜

MISHNA: If he stole that which belonged to his father and ate on his father鈥檚 property, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on the property of others, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on his father鈥檚 property, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he steals that which belonged to his father and eats on the property of others. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he steals that which belonged to his father and that which belonged to his mother.

讙诪壮 讙谞讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讘讬讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讻讬讞 诇讬讛 讘注讬转

GEMARA: The Gemara explains the reasons for the various halakhot taught in the mishna: If he stole that which belonged to his father and ate on his father鈥檚 property, even though this is accessible to him and it is easy for him to steal, he is afraid that his father will see him eating what he had stolen, and therefore he will not be drawn after his action to further evil.

诪砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讞专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘注讬转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讬讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讘讬讜 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讬讛 讜讘注讬转

If he stole that which belonged to others and ate on the property of others, even though he is not afraid of them, as they neither know him nor watch over him, this theft is not easily accessible to him, as it is performed on someone else鈥檚 property, and therefore he will not be drawn to additional sin. And all the more so if he stole that which belonged to others and ate on his father鈥檚 property, in which case it is not accessible to him, and he is also afraid of his father.

注讚 砖讬讙谞讜讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讬讗讻诇 讘专砖讜转 讗讞专讬诐 讚砖讻讬讞 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬转

Therefore, he is not liable unless he steals that which belonged to his father and eats on the property of others, in which case it is easily accessible to him, and he is not afraid, and there is concern that he will be drawn after his action to additional sin.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讙谞讜讘 诪砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜诪砖诇 讗诪讜 讗诪讜 诪谞讗 诇讛 诪讛 砖拽谞转讛 讗砖讛 拽谞讛 讘注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住注讜讚讛 讛诪讜讻谞转 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that he is not liable as a stubborn and rebellious son unless he steals that which belonged to his father and that which belonged to his mother. The Gemara asks: With regard to his mother, from where does she have independently owned property that her son can steal? The basis for this question is the halakha that anything that a woman acquires is acquired by her husband. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says in answer to this question: The mishna is referring to a case where the boy stole food from a meal that had been prepared for his father and for his mother. In such a case the husband grants his wife ownership of the food that she will eat over the course of her meal.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞谉 讘专 诪讜诇讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬拽谞讛 讘砖专 讘讝讜诇 讜讬讗讻诇 讬讬谉 讘讝讜诇 讜讬砖转讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讚诪讬 住注讜讚讛 讛诪讜讻谞转 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nan bar Molada say that Rav Huna says: A stubborn and rebellious son is not liable unless he purchases inexpensive meat and eats it, and he purchases inexpensive wine and drinks it, which indicates that he becomes liable only if he steals money, not if he steals the actual meat and wine? Rather, say that the boy stole from money set aside for a meal that was to be prepared for his father and for his mother.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讗拽谞讬 诇讛 讗讞专 讜讗诪专 诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讘注诇讬讱 专砖讜转 讘讛谉

The Gemara presents another answer to the question posed concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: If you wish, say instead that another person gave property to the mother and said to her: This shall be yours on the condition that your husband shall have no right to it. In such a case, the woman acquires the property for herself and her husband does not acquire it. Therefore, it is possible for the son to steal from his mother鈥檚 property.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 专讜爪讛 讜讗诪讜 讗讬谞讛 专讜爪讛 讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 专讜爪讛 讜讗诪讜 专讜爪讛 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讬转讛 讗诪讜 专讗讜讬讛 诇讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛

MISHNA: If his father wishes to have him punished but his mother does not wish that, or if his father does not wish to have him punished but his mother wishes that, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless they both wish that he be punished. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not suited for his father, the two being an inappropriate match, as the Gemara will explain, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讜讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗讘讜讛 讗讘讜讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诪讬讛 讗诪讬讛 谞讬谞讛讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he speaks of the mother as being not suited for the father? If we say that due to their union they are among those who are liable to receive karet, in which case the marriage does not take effect, and certainly if the union puts them in the category of those who are liable to receive one of the types of court-imposed death penalty, in which case the marriage also does not take effect, there is a difficulty: Why should it matter if they are not married? Ultimately, his father is still his father and his mother is still his mother, and the verses concerning the stubborn and rebellious son can be fulfilled.

讗诇讗 讘砖讜讛 诇讗讘讬讜 拽讗诪专 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讬转讛 讗诪讜 砖讜讛 诇讗讘讬讜 讘拽讜诇 讜讘诪专讗讛 讜讘拽讜诪讛 讗讬谞讜 谞注砖讛 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬谞谞讜 砖诪注 讘拽诇谞讜 诪讚拽讜诇 讘注讬谞谉 砖讜讬谉 诪专讗讛 讜拽讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 砖讜讬谉

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda is saying that the boy鈥檚 mother must be identical to his father in several aspects. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not identical to his father in voice, appearance, and height, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? As the verse states: 鈥淗e will not obey our voices [kolenu]鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that they both have the same voice. And since we require that they be identical in voice, we also require that they be identical in appearance and height.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 注转讬讚 诇讛讬讜转 讜诇诪讛 谞讻转讘 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future, as it is impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning, this being an aspect of the Torah that has only theoretical value. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who requires that the parents have certain identical characteristics, making it virtually impossible to apply the halakha.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讻诇 讝讛 转专讟讬诪专 讘砖专 讜砖转讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 讬讬谉 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇住拽诇讜 讗诇讗 诇讗 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 注转讬讚 诇讛讬讜转 讜诇诪讛 谞讻转讘 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬讜 讜讬砖讘转讬 注诇 拽讘专讜

If you wish, say instead that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: And is it simply due to the fact that the boy ate a tarteimar of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine that his father and his mother shall take him out to stone him? Rather, there has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. Rabbi Yonatan says: This is not so, as I saw one. I was once in a place where a stubborn and rebellious son was condemned to death, and I even sat on his grave after he was executed.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 诇讗 讛讬转讛 讜诇讗 注转讬讚讛 诇讛讬讜转 讜诇诪讛 谞讻转讘讛 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注讬专 砖讬砖 讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讝讜讝讛 讗讞转 讗讬谞讛 谞注砖讬转 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转

The Gemara raises a similar question: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been an idolatrous city and there will never be one in the future, as it is virtually impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was the passage relating to an idolatrous city written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Any city that has even one mezuza or any other sacred scroll cannot become an idolatrous city. It is difficult to imagine an entire city without even one mezuza.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗转 讻诇 砖诇诇讛 转拽讘抓 讗诇 转讜讱 专讞讘讛 讜砖专驻转 讘讗砖 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讝讜讝讛 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转注砖讜谉 讻谉 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬讛 讜讬砖讘转讬 注诇 转讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a city that has even one mezuza cannot become an idolatrous city? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the open space of the city, and shall burn with fire both the city and the entire plunder taken in it鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:17). And since if there is a mezuza there it is impossible to burn all the contents of the city, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their asherim with fire鈥This you shall not do so to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:3鈥4). It is derived from this verse that it is prohibited to destroy a sacred item such as a mezuza. Therefore, in a city that has even one mezuza, it is impossible to fulfill the halakhot of an idolatrous city, as not all of its contents may be burned. Rabbi Yonatan says: This is not so, as I once saw an idolatrous city that was condemned to destruction, and I even sat on its ruins.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 诇讗 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 注转讬讚 诇讛讬讜转 讜诇诪讛 谞讻转讘 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 注讚 砖讬专讗讛 讻砖转讬 讙专讬住讬谉 注诇 砖转讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讘砖转讬 讻转诇讬诐 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讗专讻讜 讻砖谞讬 讙专讬住讬谉 讜专讞讘讜 讻讙专讬住

The Gemara asks another similar question: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a house afflicted with leprosy of the house and there will never be one in the future. And why, then, was the passage relating to leprosy of the house written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 12:3) that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: A house never becomes impure with leprosy until a mark about the size of two split beans is seen on two stones in two walls that form a corner between them, the mark being about two split beans in length and about one split bean in width. It is difficult to imagine that such a precise situation will ever occur.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻转讬讘 拽讬专 讜讻转讬讘 拽讬专转 讗讬讝讛讜 拽讬专 砖讛讜讗 讻拽讬专讜转 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 拽专谉 讝讜讬转

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that a house does not become impure unless it has a mark precisely in the corner? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall look at the leprous mark, and, behold, if the leprous mark be in the walls of the house, in greenish or reddish depressions, which in sight are lower than the wall鈥 (Leviticus 14:37). In one part of the verse it is written 鈥渨all,鈥 and in another part of the verse it is written 鈥渨alls.鈥 Which wall is like two walls? You must say this is a corner.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讛 讘转讞讜诐 注讝讛 讜讛讬讜 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讞讜专讘转讗 住讙讬专转讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬砖 讻驻专 注讻讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讻转讬 诇讙诇讬诇 讜专讗讬转讬 诪拽讜诐 砖诪爪讬讬谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗诪专讜 讗讘谞讬诐 诪谞讜讙注讜转 驻讬谞讜 诇砖诐

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: There was a place in the area of Gaza, and it was called the leprous ruin; that is to say, it was the ruin of a house that had been afflicted with leprosy. Apparently, then, leprosy of the house has existed. Rabbi Shimon of the village of Akko said: I once went to the Galilee and I saw a place that was being marked off as an impure place, and they said that stones afflicted with leprosy were cast there. This too indicates that a house afflicted with leprosy has existed.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讙讬讚诐 讗讜 讞讬讙专 讗讜 讗诇诐 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 砖谞讗诪专 讜转驻砖讜 讘讜 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讜诇讗 讙讚诪讬谉 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讗转讜 讜诇讗 讞讙专讬谉 讜讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 讗诇诪讬谉 讘谞谞讜 讝讛 讜诇讗 住讜诪讬谉 讗讬谞谞讜 砖诪注 讘拽诇谞讜 讜诇讗 讞专砖讬谉

MISHNA: If one of the parents was without hands, or lame, or mute, or blind, or deaf, their son does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, 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. And they shall say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:19鈥20). The Sages derive: 鈥淭hen shall his father and his mother lay hold of him,鈥 but not people without hands, who cannot do this. 鈥淎nd bring him out,鈥 but not lame people, who cannot walk. 鈥淎nd they shall say,鈥 but not mutes. 鈥淭his son of ours,鈥 but not blind people, who cannot point to their son and say 鈥渢his.鈥 鈥淗e will not obey our voices,鈥 but not deaf people, who cannot hear whether or not he declined to obey them.

诪转专讬谉 讘讜 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 讜诪诇拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讞讝专 讜拽诇拽诇 谞讚讜谉 讘注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞住拽诇 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖诐 砖诇砖讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘谞谞讜 讝讛 讝讛讜 砖诇拽讛 讘驻谞讬讻诐

After he is brought before the elders of the city, he is admonished before three people and then they flog him for having stolen. If he sins again, he is judged by a court of twenty-three judges, but he is not stoned unless the first three judges before whom he had been flogged are present there, as it is stated: 鈥淭his son of ours,鈥 this is the son who was already flogged before you.

讙诪壮 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬谞谉 拽专讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗

GEMARA: The Gemara draws a conclusion from the mishna: You can learn from the mishna that we require that a verse be fulfilled precisely as it is written, in strict conformity with its literal sense, and not in looser or more expansive fashion. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There is no proof from here. Here it is different,

讚讻讜诇讬讛 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗

since the entire verse is superfluous. The verse鈥檚 description of how the father and mother bring their son out appears to be unnecessary, and therefore each element in the verse limits the halakha in a precise manner. When a verse is not superfluous, it is not strictly interpreted.

讜诪转专讬谉 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘转专讬 住讙讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪转专讬谉 讘讜 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪诇拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛

搂 The mishna teaches that after the rebellious son is brought before the elders of the city, he is admonished before three people. The Gemara asks: Why do I need him to be admonished before three people? Two witnesses should suffice, as in all other matters of halakha. Abaye says: This is what the mishna is saying: He is admonished before two people, who serve as witnesses, and he is flogged before three people, who constitute a court.

诪诇拽讜转 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘讗 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇诪讚谞讜 讜讬住专讜 诪讜讬住专讜 讜讬住专讜 诪讘谉 讜讘谉 诪讘谉 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 讘谉 讛讻讜转 讛专砖注

The Gemara asks: Where is it written that lashes are administered to a stubborn and rebellious son? There is no explicit mention of lashes in the verse. The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Abbahu said in another context, as Rabbi Abbahu says: We learned the meaning of the word 鈥渃hastise鈥 as stated with regard to a defamer: 鈥淎nd the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:18), by means of a verbal analogy from the word 鈥渃hastise鈥 stated with regard to a rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18). And the meaning of the word 鈥渃hastise鈥 in the latter verse is derived from the word 鈥渟on鈥 that appears in the same verse. And the meaning of the word 鈥渟on [ben]鈥 with regard to a rebellious son is derived from the similar word bin stated with regard to lashes: 鈥淭hen it shall be if the wicked man deserves [bin] to be flogged鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2). Consequently, the chastisement mentioned with regard to both a defamer and a rebellious son involves flogging.

讞讝专 讜拽诇拽诇 谞讬讚讜谉 讘注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讝讛 讜诇讗 住讜诪讬谉 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 讘谞谞讜 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讘谞谞讜 讝讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The mishna teaches: If he sins again, he is judged by a court of twenty-three judges, which must include the three judges before whom he was brought initially, as it is stated: 鈥淭his son of ours,鈥 this is the son who was already flogged before you. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 that verse needed for the derivation mentioned earlier: 鈥淭his son of ours,鈥 but not blind people, who cannot point to their son and say 鈥渢his鈥? The Gemara answers: If so, that these words serve only to teach that the original judges must also be present, the verse should have written: He is our son, which would indicate: He who was already flogged before you. What is the meaning of: 鈥淭his son of ours鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it: That the three original judges must also be present at the second trial, and that the son of blind parents cannot become a stubborn and rebellious son.

诪转谞讬壮 讘专讞 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讬祝 讝拽谉 讛转讞转讜谉 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘专讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讬祝 讝拽谉 讛转讞转讜谉 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: If the rebellious son ran away before he was sentenced, and afterward, before he was caught, his lower beard grew around, he is exempt from the death penalty. Once his lower beard grows around his genitals, he can no longer be judged as a stubborn and rebellious son. But if he ran away only after he was sentenced, and afterward, by the time he was caught, his lower beard had already grown around, he is liable to receive the death penalty. Once he is sentenced to death his sentence remains in force.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 谞讞 砖讘讬专讱 讗转 讛砖诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讙讬讬专 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞砖转谞讛 讚讬谞讜 谞砖转谞讛 诪讬转转讜

GEMARA: Rabbi 岣nina says: If a descendant of Noah blessed, i.e., cursed, the name of God, and afterward he converted to Judaism, he is exempt from punishment, since his trial procedure changed, and the death penalty to which he is subject also changed. A descendant of Noah is tried by a single judge, and he can be sentenced to death on the basis of the testimony of a single witness even with-out having been forewarned; whereas a Jew is tried by a court of twenty-three and can be executed only on the basis of the testimony of two witnesses, and this only after having been forewarned. A descendant of Noah is killed by the sword for this transgression, whereas a Jew is killed by stoning.

谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 讘专讞 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讬祝 讝拽谉 讛转讞转讜谉 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the mishna supports him: If the rebellious son ran away before he was sentenced, and afterward, before he was caught, his lower beard grew around, he is exempt from the death penalty? What is the reason for this exemption? Isn鈥檛 it because we say: Since his legal status has changed, his liability has also changed?

诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗讬 注讘讚 讛砖转讗 诇讗讜 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this claim: No, it is different here, with regard to a stubborn and rebellious son, as were he now, after he grew his lower beard, to perform the same actions that render one liable as a rebellious son, he would not be fit for execution, and therefore he is exempt. This is different from a gentile who cursed God鈥檚 name and then converted, as even if he cursed God after having converted, he would still be liable to receive the death penalty.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诐 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘专讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讬祝 讝拽谉 讛转讞转讜谉 讞讬讬讘 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 拽讗诪专转 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讙讘专讗 拽讟讬诇讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the latter half of the mishna: But if he ran away only after he was sentenced, and afterward, by the time he was caught, his lower beard had already grown around, he is liable to receive the death penalty. This indicates that even though his legal status has changed, he is nevertheless executed. The Gemara rejects this argument: There is no proof from here; you speak of a case where he was already sentenced to death. Once he was already sentenced, he is considered a dead man and his verdict can no longer be changed.

转讗 砖诪注 讘谉 谞讞 砖讛讻讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讘讗 注诇 讗砖转 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞转讙讬讬专 驻讟讜专 注砖讛 讻谉 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜谞转讙讬讬专 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from what was stated in a baraita: If a descendant of Noah struck and killed another gentile or engaged in intercourse with the wife of another gentile, and he then converted to Judaism, he is exempt. But if he did this to an Israelite, killing a Jew or engaging in intercourse with the wife of a Jew, and then converted, he is liable. But why should this be so? Let us say that since his legal status changed, his liability changed as well, and therefore he should no longer be subject to the death penalty. The baraita indicates that this rationale is not accepted.

讚讬谞讜 讜诪讬转转讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 讚讬谞讜 讗讬砖转谞讬 诪讬转转讜 诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬

The Gemara refutes this proof: There is no comparison between the cases, because in order to nullify one鈥檚 death penalty we require a change both in his trial procedure and in the specific death penalty to which he is subject. But this descendant of Noah, though his trial procedure changed, the death penalty to which he is subject did not change.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讜爪讞 诪注讬拽专讗 住讬讬祝 讜讛砖转讗 住讬讬祝 讗诇讗 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诪注讬拽专讗 住讬讬祝 讜讛砖转讗 讞谞拽

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, with regard to the case of a murderer, this answer is understandable, as initially, while he was still a gentile, he was subject to death by the sword, and now that he is a Jew he is still subject to death by the sword. Consequently, there is no change in the punishment to which he is subject. But with regard to the case of one who engaged in intercourse with a married woman, initially when he was still a gentile he was subject to death by the sword, but now that he is a Jew he is subject to death by strangulation. Accordingly, there is a change both in his trial procedure and in the type of capital punishment to which he is subject.

讘谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara answers: The case of a married woman mentioned here involves a man who engaged in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, so that in both this case, where he engaged in intercourse with her when he was still a descendant of Noah, and in that case, where he did so when he was already a Jew, he is subject to death by stoning. Since there was no change in the type of capital punishment to which he is subject, he remains liable and is executed.

讜讛讗 注砖讛 讻谉 讘讬砖专讗诇 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讗砖转 讞讘讬专讜 拽转谞讬

The Gemara raises an objection: But the baraita teaches the case where he did this to an Israelite, i.e., engaged in intercourse with the wife of a Jew, similar to the case where he engaged in intercourse with the wife of another gentile. Both cases seem to be addressing identical circumstances, and the unique halakha governing a betrothed young woman exists only for Jews, not for descendants of Noah. Accordingly, the baraita must be discussing the case of a fully married woman.

讗诇讗 拽诇讛 讘讞诪讜专讛 诪讬砖讱 砖讬讬讻讗

Rather, the lenient punishment is included in the severe one. If initially, when he was a gentile, he was liable to receive a more severe punishment, and now that he is a Jew he is liable to receive a more lenient punishment, the lenient punishment is included in the severe one, and he remains liable to receive the lenient punishment. By contrast, if the punishment that he is now liable to receive is more severe, he is exempt from all punishment.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 住讬讬祝 讞诪讜专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讞谞拽 讞诪讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that death by the sword is more severe than death by strangulation. Therefore, if a descendant of Noah engaged in intercourse with a married woman, so that he was subject to death by the sword, and then he converted to Judaism, so that his sentence was lightened to death by strangulation, he is still executed. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that death by strangulation is more severe than death by the sword, what can be said? The convert should now be exempt from all punishment.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讚讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讞谞拽

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of the school of Menashe, who says: Any death mentioned in connection with the descendants of Noah is nothing other than death by strangulation, and not death by the sword. Accordingly, if a descendant of Noah engaged in intercourse with a married woman, and he then converted, his punishment did not become more severe with his conversion; rather, it stayed the same, death by strangulation, and he is still executed.

讘砖诇诪讗 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诪注讬拽专讗 讞谞拽 讜讛砖转讗 讞谞拽 讗诇讗 专讜爪讞 诪注讬拽专讗 讞谞拽 讜讛砖转讗 住讬讬祝 拽诇讛 讘讞诪讜专讛 诪讬砖讱 砖讬讬讻讗

The Gemara challenges: Granted, with regard to the case of a married woman, this answer is understandable. Initially, when he was still a descendant of Noah, he was subject to death by strangulation, and now, after his conversion, he is subject to death by strangulation. But as for a murderer, initially, when he was still a descendant of Noah, according to the tanna of the school of Menashe he was subject to death by strangulation, but now, after his conversion, he is subject to death by the sword. The Gemara explains: The lenient punishment is included in the severe one, and according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, death by strangulation is more severe than death by the sword. Consequently, he is executed.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 住专讞讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘讙专讛 转讬讚讜谉 讘讞谞拽 讘住拽讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转谞讬 讗讬砖转谞讬 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讻讗 讚讗讬砖转谞讬 诇讙诪专讬 讛讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇转谞讗 转谞讬 转讬讚讜谉 讘住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the following baraita supports Rabbi 岣nina: If a betrothed young woman sinned by committing adultery, and afterward she reached her majority, at which time she was brought to trial, she is sentenced to death by strangulation like any other betrothed grown woman who commits adultery. What is the reason that she is not sentenced to death by stoning, the punishment imposed upon a betrothed young woman who commits adultery? Is it not that since her legal status changed, her liability changed as well? And all the more so here, in the case of the descendant of Noah who converted, where he changed completely from a gentile to a Jew, his sentence should change. The Gemara rejects this argument: No proof can be derived from here, as doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say to the tanna who taught this baraita before him: Emend your version of the baraita and teach: She is sentenced to death by stoning.

诪转谞讬壮 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 谞讬讚讜谉 注诇 砖诐 住讜驻讜 讬诪讜转 讝讻讗讬 讜讗诇 讬诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 砖诪讬转转谉 砖诇 专砖注讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛谉 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 专注 诇讛谉 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐

MISHNA: A stubborn and rebellious son is sen-tenced to death not because of the severity of the transgression that he already committed but on account of his ultimate end, because a boy of his nature will grow up to lead an immoral life, and it is better that he should die while he is still innocent, before causing excessive harm, and not die after he becomes guilty. This is because the death of the wicked is beneficial to them, because they can no longer sin, and it is also beneficial to the world, which is now rid of those who do it harm. Conversely, the death of the righteous is detrimental to them, as they can no longer engage in the performance of mitzvot, and it is also detrimental to the world, as the righteous are now absent from it.

讬讬谉 讜砖讬谞讛 诇专砖注讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛谉 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讜诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 专注 诇讛谉 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐

By way of association, the mishna continues: The wine and sleep of the wicked are beneficial to them and beneficial to the world, as when they are sleeping or under the influence of wine, they do not cause harm to others. And, conversely, the wine and sleep of the righteous are detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, as wine and sleep prevent them from engaging in their good deeds.

驻讬讝讜专 诇专砖注讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛谉 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讜诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 专注 诇讛谉 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐 讻谞讜住 诇专砖注讬诐 专注 诇讛谉 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐 讜诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛谉 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 砖拽讟 诇专砖注讬诐 专注 诇讛谉 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐 诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛谉 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐

The dispersal of the wicked, so that they are not found in close proximity to each other, is beneficial to them, as they are less likely to provoke each other to sin, and it is beneficial to the world. The dispersal of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world. The assembly of the wicked in one place is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, while the assembly of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world. The tranquility of the wicked is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, while the tranquility of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world.

Scroll To Top