Today's Daf Yomi
October 4, 2017 | י״ד בתשרי תשע״ח
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Sanhedrin 80
If a cow kills a person and gets stoned, what is the status of its fetus if it is pregnant? Does it depend on whether or not the cow was pregnant at the time of the killing? At the time of the conviction? Does it depend on the time the calf is born? Does a warning need to contain the exact type of death sentence? 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. If one is convicted to get 2 death penalties which one does he get? Does it depend on if they were both from the same act or from 2 different acts? 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. Under what circumstances does one get sent to a “kipa” and how does the gemara understand the circumstances described in the mishna?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
אי הכי היינו דקתני עלה אמר רבי יוסי אפילו אבא חלפתא ביניהן
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 Ḥalafta, i.e., Rabbi Yosei’s 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’s father and a group of oxen?
אלא אמר רבא הכי קאמר שנים שהיו עומדין ויצא חץ מביניהם והרג שניהם פטורין ואמר רבי יוסי אפילו אבא חלפתא ביניהן
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 Ḥalafta was among them. Even if one of the two people from among whom the arrow emerged was a righteous individual like Abba Ḥalafta, who presumably is not a murderer, since there is no conclusive testimony identifying the shooter, uncertainty remains and both are exempt.
ושור שנגמר דינו שנתערב בשוורין אחרים מעלייא סוקלין אותן רבי יהודה אומר כונסין אותן לכיפה
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.
והתניא פרה שהמיתה ואחר כך ילדה אם עד שלא נגמר דינה ילדה וולדה מותר אם משנגמר דינה ילדה וולדה אסור נתערב באחרים ואחרים באחרים כונסין אותן לכיפה רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר מביאין אותן לבית דין וסוקלין אותן
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.
אמר מר אם עד שלא נגמר דינה ילדה וולדה מותרת ואף על גב דכי נגחה הות מיעברה והאמר רבא ולד הנוגחת אסור היא וולדה נגחו ולד הנרבעת אסור היא וולדה נרבעו
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’t 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.
אימא אם עד שלא נגמר דינה עיברה וילדה וולדה מותר אם משנגמר דינה עיברה וילדה וולדה אסור
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.
הניחא למאן דאמר זה וזה גורם אסור
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.
אלא למאן דאמר זה וזה גורם מותר מאי איכא למימר
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.
אלא אמר רבינא אימא אם עד שלא נגמר דינה עיברה וילדה ולדה מותר ואם עד שלא נגמר דינה עיברה ומשנגמר דינה ילדה ולדה אסור עובר ירך אמו הוא
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’s 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.
כל חייבי מיתות שמע מינה מותרה לדבר חמור הוי מותרה לדבר קל
§ 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.
אמר רבי ירמיה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהתרו בו סתם והאי תנא הוא דתניא ושאר חייבי מיתות שבתורה אין ממיתין אותן אלא בעדה ועדים והתראה ועד שיודיעוהו שהוא חייב מיתת בית דין רבי יהודה אומר עד שיודיעוהו באיזה מיתה הוא נהרג
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.
תנא קמא יליף ממקושש ורבי יהודה אומר מקושש הוראת שעה היתה
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 15:32–36), 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.
הנסקלין בנשרפין מתני ליה רב יחזקאל לרמי בריה הנשרפין בנסקלין רבי שמעון אומר ידונו בסקילה שהשריפה חמורה
§ 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 Yeḥezkel 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.
אמר ליה רב יהודה אבא לא תיתנייה הכי מאי איריא דשריפה חמורה תיפוק ליה דרובה נסקלין נינהו אלא היכי אתנייה
Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Yeḥezkel, 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 Yeḥezkel asked Rav Yehuda: Rather, how then shall I teach it?
הנסקלין בנשרפין רבי שמעון אומר ידונו בסקילה שהשריפה חמורה אי הכי אימא סיפא ׳וחכמים אומרים ידונו בשריפה שהסקילה חמורה׳ תיפוק ליה דרובה נשרפין נינהו
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 Yeḥezkel, 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.
התם רבנן הוא דקאמרו ליה לרבי שמעון לדידך דאמרת שריפה חמורה לא סקילה חמורה
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.
אמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא
When this narrative was heard, Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Long-toothed one:
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
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
אי הכי היינו דקתני עלה אמר רבי יוסי אפילו אבא חלפתא ביניהן
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 Ḥalafta, i.e., Rabbi Yosei’s 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’s father and a group of oxen?
אלא אמר רבא הכי קאמר שנים שהיו עומדין ויצא חץ מביניהם והרג שניהם פטורין ואמר רבי יוסי אפילו אבא חלפתא ביניהן
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 Ḥalafta was among them. Even if one of the two people from among whom the arrow emerged was a righteous individual like Abba Ḥalafta, who presumably is not a murderer, since there is no conclusive testimony identifying the shooter, uncertainty remains and both are exempt.
ושור שנגמר דינו שנתערב בשוורין אחרים מעלייא סוקלין אותן רבי יהודה אומר כונסין אותן לכיפה
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.
והתניא פרה שהמיתה ואחר כך ילדה אם עד שלא נגמר דינה ילדה וולדה מותר אם משנגמר דינה ילדה וולדה אסור נתערב באחרים ואחרים באחרים כונסין אותן לכיפה רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר מביאין אותן לבית דין וסוקלין אותן
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.
אמר מר אם עד שלא נגמר דינה ילדה וולדה מותרת ואף על גב דכי נגחה הות מיעברה והאמר רבא ולד הנוגחת אסור היא וולדה נגחו ולד הנרבעת אסור היא וולדה נרבעו
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’t 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.
אימא אם עד שלא נגמר דינה עיברה וילדה וולדה מותר אם משנגמר דינה עיברה וילדה וולדה אסור
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.
הניחא למאן דאמר זה וזה גורם אסור
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.
אלא למאן דאמר זה וזה גורם מותר מאי איכא למימר
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.
אלא אמר רבינא אימא אם עד שלא נגמר דינה עיברה וילדה ולדה מותר ואם עד שלא נגמר דינה עיברה ומשנגמר דינה ילדה ולדה אסור עובר ירך אמו הוא
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’s 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.
כל חייבי מיתות שמע מינה מותרה לדבר חמור הוי מותרה לדבר קל
§ 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.
אמר רבי ירמיה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהתרו בו סתם והאי תנא הוא דתניא ושאר חייבי מיתות שבתורה אין ממיתין אותן אלא בעדה ועדים והתראה ועד שיודיעוהו שהוא חייב מיתת בית דין רבי יהודה אומר עד שיודיעוהו באיזה מיתה הוא נהרג
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.
תנא קמא יליף ממקושש ורבי יהודה אומר מקושש הוראת שעה היתה
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 15:32–36), 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.
הנסקלין בנשרפין מתני ליה רב יחזקאל לרמי בריה הנשרפין בנסקלין רבי שמעון אומר ידונו בסקילה שהשריפה חמורה
§ 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 Yeḥezkel 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.
אמר ליה רב יהודה אבא לא תיתנייה הכי מאי איריא דשריפה חמורה תיפוק ליה דרובה נסקלין נינהו אלא היכי אתנייה
Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Yeḥezkel, 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 Yeḥezkel asked Rav Yehuda: Rather, how then shall I teach it?
הנסקלין בנשרפין רבי שמעון אומר ידונו בסקילה שהשריפה חמורה אי הכי אימא סיפא ׳וחכמים אומרים ידונו בשריפה שהסקילה חמורה׳ תיפוק ליה דרובה נשרפין נינהו
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 Yeḥezkel, 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.
התם רבנן הוא דקאמרו ליה לרבי שמעון לדידך דאמרת שריפה חמורה לא סקילה חמורה
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.
אמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא
When this narrative was heard, Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Long-toothed one:
