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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 4, 2017 | 讬状讚 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 80

If a cow kills a person and gets stoned, what is the status of its fetus if it is pregnant?聽 聽Does it depend on whether or not the cow was pregnant at the time of the killing?聽 At the time of the conviction?聽 Does it depend on the time the calf is born?聽 Does a warning need to contain the exact type of death sentence?聽 Rav Yehuda corrects his father’s version of the mishna and is reprimanded by his teacher for not expressing his words respectfully enough to his father.聽 If one is convicted to get 2 death penalties which one does he get?聽 Does it depend on if they were both from the same act or from 2 different acts?聽 The next 2 mishnayot describe situations in which one gets sent to a “kipa” – each mishna describes what differently what the person is fed in the “kipa.” The gemara assumes they are describing the same thing and just each one dealing with a different stage.聽 Under what circumstances does one get sent to a “kipa” and how does the gemara understand the circumstances described in the mishna?


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

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讘讗 讞诇驻转讗 讘讬谞讬讛谉

If so, according to Shmuel or Reish Lakish, is that compatible with that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the mishna, that Rabbi Yosei says: This is the halakha even if Abba 岣lafta, i.e., Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 father, who himself was a righteous Sage, was among them? This is difficult according to Shmuel, as Rabbi Yosei would certainly not include his father in a group of murderers, and according to Reish Lakish, what is the connection between Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 father and a group of oxen?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 注讜诪讚讬谉 讜讬爪讗 讞抓 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜讛专讙 砖谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讘讗 讞诇驻转讗 讘讬谞讬讛谉

Rather, Rava says: This is what the mishna is saying: In a case where two people were standing together and an arrow emerged from their midst and killed a person, since it is not known which of them shot the arrow, both of them are exempt. And Rabbi Yosei says: This is the halakha even if Abba 岣lafta was among them. Even if one of the two people from among whom the arrow emerged was a righteous individual like Abba 岣lafta, who presumably is not a murderer, since there is no conclusive testimony identifying the shooter, uncertainty remains and both are exempt.

讜砖讜专 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 砖谞转注专讘 讘砖讜讜专讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 诪注诇讬讬讗 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讻讬驻讛

The tanna then proceeds to discuss a different matter. And an ox whose verdict was finalized, that was sentenced to execution by stoning, and that was intermingled with other ordinary oxen, i.e., oxen that did not gore, the court stones all of them. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are placed in a vaulted chamber.

讜讛转谞讬讗 驻专讛 砖讛诪讬转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讜讜诇讚讛 诪讜转专 讗诐 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讜讜诇讚讛 讗住讜专 谞转注专讘 讘讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讞专讬诐 讻讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讻讬驻讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

The Gemara notes: And it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a cow that killed a person, and thereafter calved, if it was before its verdict was finalized that the cow calved, its offspring is permitted. If it was after its verdict was finalized that the cow calved, its offspring is prohibited, as it was prohibited together with the cow. If the cow was intermingled with other cows and the identity of the cow that killed cannot be determined, and those other cows were intermingled with yet others, the court gathers them into a vaulted chamber. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One brings them to court and the court stones them. The unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讜讜诇讚讛 诪讜转专转 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻讬 谞讙讞讛 讛讜转 诪讬注讘专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诇讚 讛谞讜讙讞转 讗住讜专 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞讙讞讜 讜诇讚 讛谞专讘注转 讗住讜专 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞专讘注讜

The Master says in the baraita: If the cow calved before its verdict was finalized, its offspring is permitted. The Gemara asks: And is that the ruling even though when it gored it was already pregnant? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say with regard to the offspring of a cow that gores while pregnant: It is prohibited to bring it as an offering, like any animal that killed a person, as the cow and its unborn offspring gored together. And similarly, with regard to the offspring of a cow that was the object of bestiality while the offspring was in utero: It is prohibited to bring it as an offering, as the cow and its unborn offspring were the object of bestiality together. The baraita poses a difficulty according to Rava.

讗讬诪讗 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 注讬讘专讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讜讜诇讚讛 诪讜转专 讗诐 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 注讬讘专讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讜讜诇讚讛 讗住讜专

The Gemara answers: Emend the baraita and say that the reference is not to a case where a cow that was pregnant gored; rather, the reference is to a case where a cow was impregnated after it gored, and this is the distinction: If before its verdict was finalized the cow was impregnated and calved, its offspring is permitted; if after its verdict was finalized the cow was impregnated and calved, its offspring is forbidden together with it.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who says that in a case where this permitted factor and that forbidden factor cause an outcome to be produced, that outcome is forbidden. The offspring that was produced from a bull from which deriving benefit is permitted and a cow from which deriving benefit is forbidden is therefore forbidden as well.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

But according to the one who says that in a case where this permitted factor and that forbidden factor cause an outcome to be produced, that outcome is permitted, what can be said? Since deriving benefit from the bull that sired the offspring is permitted, deriving benefit from the offspring should be permitted as well.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗讬诪讗 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 注讬讘专讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讜诇讚讛 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 注讬讘专讛 讜诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讜诇讚讛 讗住讜专 注讜讘专 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗

Rather, Ravina says: Emend the baraita and say that the distinction in the baraita is: If before its verdict was finalized, the cow was impregnated and calved, its offspring is permitted. If before its verdict was finalized, the cow was impregnated and after its verdict was finalized it calved, its offspring is forbidden because the legal status of the fetus is not that of an independent entity; rather, its status is like that of its mother鈥檚 thigh, i.e., a part of its body. Therefore, when the mother is sentenced to death, the offspring is also forbidden once it is born.

讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讜转专讛 诇讚讘专 讞诪讜专 讛讜讬 诪讜转专讛 诇讚讘专 拽诇

搂 The mishna teaches: All those liable to be executed with different court-imposed death penalties who became intermingled are sentenced to the most lenient form of execution. The Gemara noted: Conclude from the mishna that an individual who is forewarned for a severe matter is forewarned for a lesser matter. If one is forewarned that if he violates a certain prohibition then he is liable to be stoned, while in fact, he is liable to be executed with a less severe form of execution, the forewarning is effective and he is executed with the less severe form of execution. That is the reason for the halakha in the mishna that even those liable to be executed with a more severe form of execution are executed with the less severe form of execution.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛转专讜 讘讜 住转诐 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜砖讗专 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诪诪讬转讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗诇讗 讘注讚讛 讜注讚讬诐 讜讛转专讗讛 讜注讚 砖讬讜讚讬注讜讛讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讜讚讬注讜讛讜 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗 谞讛专讙

Rabbi Yirmeya rejects that proof and says: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the witnesses forewarned the individual that if he violates the prohibition he is liable to be executed, without specification of the mode of execution. And this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all the others, those who are liable for the various death penalties stated in the Torah other than the inciter to idol worship, the court executes them only when the following elements are present: The congregation, represented by the court, and witnesses, and forewarning just before the defendant commits the transgression. And the court does not execute him unless the witnesses informed the defendant that he is liable to receive the death penalty from the court. Rabbi Yehuda says: The defendant is not executed unless the witnesses informed the defendant by which form of death penalty he is to be executed.

转谞讗 拽诪讗 讬诇讬祝 诪诪拽讜砖砖 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜砖砖 讛讜专讗转 砖注讛 讛讬转讛

Based on the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it may be inferred that according to the first tanna, although they must inform him that he is liable to be executed, they are not required to inform him of the specific mode of execution. The Gemara explains the basis for the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda: The first tanna derived forewarning from the incident of the wood gatherer (see Numbers 15:32鈥36), who was executed even though even Moses did not know with which death penalty he was to be executed. Clearly, the mode of execution could not have been included in his forewarning. Rabbi Yehuda says: The execution of the wood gatherer was a provisional edict based on the word of God. The halakha throughout the generations cannot be derived from it.

讛谞住拽诇讬谉 讘谞砖专驻讬谉 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诇专诪讬 讘专讬讛 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讘谞住拽诇讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讚讜谞讜 讘住拽讬诇讛 砖讛砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛

搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where those who are liable to be stoned were intermingled with those who are liable to be burned, Rabbi Shimon says: They are all sentenced to be executed by stoning, and the Rabbis say: They are all sentenced to be executed by burning. Rav Ye岣zkel taught a different version to Rami, his son: In a case where those who are liable to be burned were intermingled with those who are liable to be stoned, Rabbi Shimon says: They shall all be sentenced to execution by stoning, as burning is a more severe form of execution.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讘讗 诇讗 转讬转谞讬讬讛 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚专讜讘讛 谞住拽诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Ye岣zkel, said to him: Father, do not teach it in that manner, as it is difficult to understand: Why does Rabbi Shimon teach that the reason is specifically that burning is a more severe form of execution than stoning? Derive this halakha, that they are stoned, for a different reason: The principle with regard to a mixture is to follow the majority, and in this case the majority of the intermingled group is liable to be stoned. Rav Ye岣zkel asked Rav Yehuda: Rather, how then shall I teach it?

讛谞住拽诇讬谉 讘谞砖专驻讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讚讜谞讜 讘住拽讬诇讛 砖讛砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 壮讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讚讜谞讜 讘砖专讬驻讛 砖讛住拽讬诇讛 讞诪讜专讛壮 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚专讜讘讛 谞砖专驻讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜

Rav Yehuda said: You should teach: In a case where those who are liable to be stoned were intermingled with those who are liable to be burned, where the majority is liable to be burned, Rabbi Shimon says: They shall all be sentenced to execution by stoning, as burning is a more severe form of execution. Rav Ye岣zkel, his father, asked: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: And the Rabbis say: They shall all be sentenced to execution by burning, as stoning is a more severe form of execution. If so, derive this halakha, that they are burned because in this case the majority of the intermingled group is liable to be burned, not because stoning is a more severe form of execution.

讛转诐 专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇讗 住拽讬诇讛 讞诪讜专讛

Rav Yehuda answered: There, in the latter clause, it is the Rabbis who say to Rabbi Shimon: According to you, who say that burning is a more severe form of execution than stoning, the fact that the majority is liable to be burned does not warrant the execution of the entire group by burning, since the minority was sentenced to stoning, which is more lenient in your opinion. That is not so, as stoning is a more severe form of execution. And that reason is extraneous, as in this case, they are burned because the majority of the group is liable to be burned.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗

When this narrative was heard, Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Long-toothed one:

  • 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 80

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 80

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讘讗 讞诇驻转讗 讘讬谞讬讛谉

If so, according to Shmuel or Reish Lakish, is that compatible with that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the mishna, that Rabbi Yosei says: This is the halakha even if Abba 岣lafta, i.e., Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 father, who himself was a righteous Sage, was among them? This is difficult according to Shmuel, as Rabbi Yosei would certainly not include his father in a group of murderers, and according to Reish Lakish, what is the connection between Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 father and a group of oxen?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 注讜诪讚讬谉 讜讬爪讗 讞抓 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜讛专讙 砖谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讘讗 讞诇驻转讗 讘讬谞讬讛谉

Rather, Rava says: This is what the mishna is saying: In a case where two people were standing together and an arrow emerged from their midst and killed a person, since it is not known which of them shot the arrow, both of them are exempt. And Rabbi Yosei says: This is the halakha even if Abba 岣lafta was among them. Even if one of the two people from among whom the arrow emerged was a righteous individual like Abba 岣lafta, who presumably is not a murderer, since there is no conclusive testimony identifying the shooter, uncertainty remains and both are exempt.

讜砖讜专 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 砖谞转注专讘 讘砖讜讜专讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 诪注诇讬讬讗 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讻讬驻讛

The tanna then proceeds to discuss a different matter. And an ox whose verdict was finalized, that was sentenced to execution by stoning, and that was intermingled with other ordinary oxen, i.e., oxen that did not gore, the court stones all of them. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are placed in a vaulted chamber.

讜讛转谞讬讗 驻专讛 砖讛诪讬转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讜讜诇讚讛 诪讜转专 讗诐 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讜讜诇讚讛 讗住讜专 谞转注专讘 讘讗讞专讬诐 讜讗讞专讬诐 讘讗讞专讬诐 讻讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讻讬驻讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

The Gemara notes: And it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a cow that killed a person, and thereafter calved, if it was before its verdict was finalized that the cow calved, its offspring is permitted. If it was after its verdict was finalized that the cow calved, its offspring is prohibited, as it was prohibited together with the cow. If the cow was intermingled with other cows and the identity of the cow that killed cannot be determined, and those other cows were intermingled with yet others, the court gathers them into a vaulted chamber. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One brings them to court and the court stones them. The unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讜讜诇讚讛 诪讜转专转 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻讬 谞讙讞讛 讛讜转 诪讬注讘专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诇讚 讛谞讜讙讞转 讗住讜专 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞讙讞讜 讜诇讚 讛谞专讘注转 讗住讜专 讛讬讗 讜讜诇讚讛 谞专讘注讜

The Master says in the baraita: If the cow calved before its verdict was finalized, its offspring is permitted. The Gemara asks: And is that the ruling even though when it gored it was already pregnant? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say with regard to the offspring of a cow that gores while pregnant: It is prohibited to bring it as an offering, like any animal that killed a person, as the cow and its unborn offspring gored together. And similarly, with regard to the offspring of a cow that was the object of bestiality while the offspring was in utero: It is prohibited to bring it as an offering, as the cow and its unborn offspring were the object of bestiality together. The baraita poses a difficulty according to Rava.

讗讬诪讗 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 注讬讘专讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讜讜诇讚讛 诪讜转专 讗诐 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 注讬讘专讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讜讜诇讚讛 讗住讜专

The Gemara answers: Emend the baraita and say that the reference is not to a case where a cow that was pregnant gored; rather, the reference is to a case where a cow was impregnated after it gored, and this is the distinction: If before its verdict was finalized the cow was impregnated and calved, its offspring is permitted; if after its verdict was finalized the cow was impregnated and calved, its offspring is forbidden together with it.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who says that in a case where this permitted factor and that forbidden factor cause an outcome to be produced, that outcome is forbidden. The offspring that was produced from a bull from which deriving benefit is permitted and a cow from which deriving benefit is forbidden is therefore forbidden as well.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

But according to the one who says that in a case where this permitted factor and that forbidden factor cause an outcome to be produced, that outcome is permitted, what can be said? Since deriving benefit from the bull that sired the offspring is permitted, deriving benefit from the offspring should be permitted as well.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗讬诪讗 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 注讬讘专讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讜诇讚讛 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 注讬讘专讛 讜诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讜诇讚讛 讗住讜专 注讜讘专 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗

Rather, Ravina says: Emend the baraita and say that the distinction in the baraita is: If before its verdict was finalized, the cow was impregnated and calved, its offspring is permitted. If before its verdict was finalized, the cow was impregnated and after its verdict was finalized it calved, its offspring is forbidden because the legal status of the fetus is not that of an independent entity; rather, its status is like that of its mother鈥檚 thigh, i.e., a part of its body. Therefore, when the mother is sentenced to death, the offspring is also forbidden once it is born.

讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讜转专讛 诇讚讘专 讞诪讜专 讛讜讬 诪讜转专讛 诇讚讘专 拽诇

搂 The mishna teaches: All those liable to be executed with different court-imposed death penalties who became intermingled are sentenced to the most lenient form of execution. The Gemara noted: Conclude from the mishna that an individual who is forewarned for a severe matter is forewarned for a lesser matter. If one is forewarned that if he violates a certain prohibition then he is liable to be stoned, while in fact, he is liable to be executed with a less severe form of execution, the forewarning is effective and he is executed with the less severe form of execution. That is the reason for the halakha in the mishna that even those liable to be executed with a more severe form of execution are executed with the less severe form of execution.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛转专讜 讘讜 住转诐 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜砖讗专 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诪诪讬转讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗诇讗 讘注讚讛 讜注讚讬诐 讜讛转专讗讛 讜注讚 砖讬讜讚讬注讜讛讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讜讚讬注讜讛讜 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗 谞讛专讙

Rabbi Yirmeya rejects that proof and says: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the witnesses forewarned the individual that if he violates the prohibition he is liable to be executed, without specification of the mode of execution. And this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all the others, those who are liable for the various death penalties stated in the Torah other than the inciter to idol worship, the court executes them only when the following elements are present: The congregation, represented by the court, and witnesses, and forewarning just before the defendant commits the transgression. And the court does not execute him unless the witnesses informed the defendant that he is liable to receive the death penalty from the court. Rabbi Yehuda says: The defendant is not executed unless the witnesses informed the defendant by which form of death penalty he is to be executed.

转谞讗 拽诪讗 讬诇讬祝 诪诪拽讜砖砖 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜砖砖 讛讜专讗转 砖注讛 讛讬转讛

Based on the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it may be inferred that according to the first tanna, although they must inform him that he is liable to be executed, they are not required to inform him of the specific mode of execution. The Gemara explains the basis for the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda: The first tanna derived forewarning from the incident of the wood gatherer (see Numbers 15:32鈥36), who was executed even though even Moses did not know with which death penalty he was to be executed. Clearly, the mode of execution could not have been included in his forewarning. Rabbi Yehuda says: The execution of the wood gatherer was a provisional edict based on the word of God. The halakha throughout the generations cannot be derived from it.

讛谞住拽诇讬谉 讘谞砖专驻讬谉 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讞讝拽讗诇 诇专诪讬 讘专讬讛 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讘谞住拽诇讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讚讜谞讜 讘住拽讬诇讛 砖讛砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛

搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where those who are liable to be stoned were intermingled with those who are liable to be burned, Rabbi Shimon says: They are all sentenced to be executed by stoning, and the Rabbis say: They are all sentenced to be executed by burning. Rav Ye岣zkel taught a different version to Rami, his son: In a case where those who are liable to be burned were intermingled with those who are liable to be stoned, Rabbi Shimon says: They shall all be sentenced to execution by stoning, as burning is a more severe form of execution.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讘讗 诇讗 转讬转谞讬讬讛 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚专讜讘讛 谞住拽诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讗转谞讬讬讛

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Ye岣zkel, said to him: Father, do not teach it in that manner, as it is difficult to understand: Why does Rabbi Shimon teach that the reason is specifically that burning is a more severe form of execution than stoning? Derive this halakha, that they are stoned, for a different reason: The principle with regard to a mixture is to follow the majority, and in this case the majority of the intermingled group is liable to be stoned. Rav Ye岣zkel asked Rav Yehuda: Rather, how then shall I teach it?

讛谞住拽诇讬谉 讘谞砖专驻讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讚讜谞讜 讘住拽讬诇讛 砖讛砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 壮讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讚讜谞讜 讘砖专讬驻讛 砖讛住拽讬诇讛 讞诪讜专讛壮 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚专讜讘讛 谞砖专驻讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜

Rav Yehuda said: You should teach: In a case where those who are liable to be stoned were intermingled with those who are liable to be burned, where the majority is liable to be burned, Rabbi Shimon says: They shall all be sentenced to execution by stoning, as burning is a more severe form of execution. Rav Ye岣zkel, his father, asked: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: And the Rabbis say: They shall all be sentenced to execution by burning, as stoning is a more severe form of execution. If so, derive this halakha, that they are burned because in this case the majority of the intermingled group is liable to be burned, not because stoning is a more severe form of execution.

讛转诐 专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇讗 住拽讬诇讛 讞诪讜专讛

Rav Yehuda answered: There, in the latter clause, it is the Rabbis who say to Rabbi Shimon: According to you, who say that burning is a more severe form of execution than stoning, the fact that the majority is liable to be burned does not warrant the execution of the entire group by burning, since the minority was sentenced to stoning, which is more lenient in your opinion. That is not so, as stoning is a more severe form of execution. And that reason is extraneous, as in this case, they are burned because the majority of the group is liable to be burned.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗

When this narrative was heard, Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Long-toothed one:

Scroll To Top