Sanhedrin 81
לָא תֵּימָא לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּךְ הָכִי, דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו עוֹבֵר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: ״אַבָּא, עָבַרְתָּ עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה״, אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״אַבָּא, כָּךְ כְּתִיב בַּתּוֹרָה״. סוֹף סוֹף הַיְינוּ הָךְ! אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״אַבָּא, מִקְרָא כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה כָּךְ הוּא״.
Do not speak to your father in that manner, where you tell him directly that he is mistaken. Rather, raise the matter in a circumspect manner, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one’s father was violating Torah matters he should not say to him: Father, you violated Torah matters. Rather, he should say to him: Father, it is written so in the Torah. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, isn’t this formulation identical to that previous formulation? In both cases he embarrasses his father. Rather, say to him: Father, there is a verse written in the Torah and this is what it says. Tell him the halakha or the verse in a way in which it is not obvious that it relates to the action that his father performed.
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב בִּשְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין – נִידּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה. עָבַר עֲבֵירָה שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת – נִידּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: נִידּוֹן בַּזִּיקָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁבָּאָה עָלָיו.
MISHNA: One who is liable to be executed with two different court-imposed death penalties, as he violated two different capital transgressions, is sentenced to the more severe form of execution. If one violated one transgression for which he is liable to receive two death penalties, e.g., if one engaged in intercourse with his mother-in-law, who is also a married woman, he is sentenced to the more severe form of execution. Rabbi Yosei says: He is sentenced to the form of execution that he is liable to receive due to the first relationship that came upon him, i.e., if she was his mother-in-law before she was married, he is executed by burning; if she was married before she was his mother-in-law, he is punished by strangulation.
גְּמָ׳ פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא, אִיתְּגוֹרֵי אִיתְּגוּר?
GEMARA: With regard to the ruling in the mishna that one who is liable to be executed with two different court-imposed death penalties is sentenced to the more severe form of execution the Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Rather, would you say that he would profit from the fact that he violated a second capital transgression and would receive a more lenient punishment?
אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵירָה קַלָּה, וְנִגְמַר דִּינוֹ עַל עֲבֵירָה קַלָּה, וְחָזַר וְעָבַר עֲבֵירָה חֲמוּרָה. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כֵּיוָן דְּנִגְמַר דִּינוֹ לַעֲבֵירָה קַלָּה, הַאי גַּבְרָא קְטִילָא הוּא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Rava says: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he violated a relatively minor transgression punishable by a less severe form of execution, and his verdict was issued for the minor transgression, and he then violated a major transgression punishable by a more severe form of execution. It could enter your mind to say: Once his verdict was finalized for the minor transgression, the legal status of this individual is that of a dead man, and anything that he does thereafter is insignificant. To counter this, the tanna teaches us that he is liable to be punished for the subsequent transgression, and if it is punishable by a more severe form of execution, he is executed with that form of execution.
בְּעָא מִנֵּיהּ אֲבוּהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא מֵרַבָּה בַּר נָתָן: מְנַָא הָא מִילְּתָא דַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן, מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין נִידּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהוֹלִיד בֵּן פָּרִיץ שֹׁפֵךְ דָּם [וְגוֹ׳] אֶל הֶהָרִים אָכַל וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ טִמֵּא וְאֶל הַגִּלּוּלִים נָשָׂא עֵינָיו״.
The father of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama asked of Rabba bar Natan: From where is this matter that the Sages stated derived: One who is liable to be executed with two different court-imposed death penalties is sentenced to the more severe form of execution? Rabba bar Natan answered: It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And he begets a violent son, a shedder of blood, who does to a brother any of these. And he had not done any of these, for he has eaten upon the mountains and defiled his neighbor’s wife, has wronged the poor and needy, has taken by robbery, does not return collateral, and has lifted his eyes toward the idols, has committed abomination” (Ezekiel 18:10–12).
״וְהוֹלִיד בֵּן פָּרִיץ שֹׁפֵךְ דָּם״ – בְּסַיִיף, ״אֶת אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ טִמֵּא״ – זוֹ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בְּחֶנֶק, ״וְאֶל הַגִּלּוּלִים נָשָׂא עֵינָיו״ – זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בִּסְקִילָה. וּכְתִיב: ״מוֹת יוּמָת דָּמָיו בּוֹ יִהְיֶה״ – בִּסְקִילָה.
This is interpreted: “And he begets a violent son, a shedder of blood,” this is one who is liable to be executed by beheading with a sword; “defiled his neighbor’s wife,” this is engaging in intercourse with a married woman, for which one is liable to be executed by strangulation; “lifted his eyes toward the idols,” this is idol worship, for which one is liable to be executed by stoning. And it is written thereafter: “He shall be put to death, his blood shall be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:13), which means that he is executed by stoning. It appears that one who violates several capital transgressions is executed with the most severe form of execution for which he is liable.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אֵימָא כּוּלְּהוּ בִּסְקִילָה. ״וְהוֹלִיד בֵּן פָּרִיץ שֹׁפֵךְ דָּם״ – זֶה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה דְּבִסְקִילָה, ״אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ טִמֵּא״ – זוֹ נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה דְּבִסְקִילָה, ״וְאֶל הַגִּלּוּלִים נָשָׂא עֵינָיו״ – זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּבִסְקִילָה.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objects to this: Say that all of the transgressions listed in the verse are punishable by stoning. How? “And he begets a violent son, a shedder of blood,” this is a wayward and rebellious son, who is executed by stoning; “defiled his neighbor’s wife,” this is engaging in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, for which one is executed by stoning; “lifted his eyes toward the idols,” this is idol worship, for which one is executed by stoning.
אִם כֵּן, מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן יְחֶזְקֵאל? דִּלְמָא תּוֹרָה קָא מַהְדַּר. אִם כֵּן, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאַהְדּוֹרַהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאַהְדְּרַהּ מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ.
The Gemara answers: If so, according to that understanding of the verse, what is Ezekiel teaching us? According to the first understanding, a new halakha is derived from here; but according to the interpretation of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak there is nothing novel. The Gemara rejects this contention: Perhaps it is the halakhot of the Torah that Ezekiel is reiterating, admonishing the people to fulfill the directives of the Torah. The Gemara answers: If it is so that this was Ezekiel’s intention, it would have been necessary for him to reiterate the halakhot in the manner that Moses our teacher reviewed it, employing the same language. The fact that Ezekiel diverged from Moses’ formulation indicates that he sought to teach a new halakha.
דָּרֵשׁ רַב אַחָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״אֶל הֶהָרִים לֹא אָכָל״? שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל בִּזְכוּת אֲבוֹתָיו. ״וְעֵינָיו לֹא נָשָׂא אֶל גִּלּוּלֵי בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל״? שֶׁלֹּא הָלַךְ בְּקוֹמָה זְקוּפָה.
The Gemara cites a homiletic interpretation that Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He did not eat upon the mountains, nor did he lift his eyes toward the idols of the house of Israel, nor did he defile his neighbor’s wife, nor did he approach a menstruating woman” (Ezekiel 18:6)? This cannot be understood literally, as refraining from performing these transgressions is not sufficient to characterize an individual as righteous. “He did not eat upon the mountains” is an allusion to the fact that he did not eat due to the merit of his fathers; rather, he relies on his own merit and righteousness. “Nor did he lift his eyes toward the idols of the house of Israel” is a reference to one who distances himself from anything similar to idol worship, to the extent that he did not walk with upright stature, typical of a haughty person, as haughtiness is typical of idolaters.
״וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ לֹא טִמֵּא״ – שֶׁלֹּא יָרַד לְאוּמָּנוּת חֲבֵירוֹ, ״וְאֶל אִשָּׁה נִדָּה לֹא יִקְרָב״ – שֶׁלֹּא נֶהֱנָה מִקּוּפָּה שֶׁל צְדָקָה. וּכְתִיב: ״צַדִּיק הוּא חָיֹה יִחְיֶה״. כְּשֶׁהָיָה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַגִּיעַ לְמִקְרָא הַזֶּה, הָיָה בּוֹכֶה. אֲמַר: מַאן דְּעָבֵיד לְכוּלְּהוּ הוּא דְּחָיֵי, בַּחֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ – לָא?
“Nor did he defile his neighbor’s wife” is an allusion to the fact that he did not infringe upon another’s trade, thereby compromising his livelihood. “Nor did he approach a menstruating woman” is an allusion to the fact that he did not benefit from the charity fund even if he was needy. And it is written with regard to one who refrains from these actions: “He is a righteous man, he shall live” (Ezekiel 18:9). The Gemara relates: When Rabban Gamliel would reach this verse: “And has kept all My statutes, and has performed them, he shall live” (Ezekiel 18:19), he would cry and say: It is one who performs all of them, who lives; one who performs one of them, no, he shall not live.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: ״אַל תִּטַּמְּאוּ בְּכׇל אֵלֶּה״, הָכִי נָמֵי בְּכוּלְּהוּ – אִין, בַּחֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ – לָא? אֶלָּא: בְּאַחַת מִכׇּל אֵלֶּה, הָכִי נָמֵי: בְּאַחַת מִכׇּל אֵלֶּה.
Rabbi Akiva said to Rabban Gamliel in an attempt to console him: If that is so, that the term “all” is understood in that manner, with regard to that which is written concerning the forbidden relatives enumerated in the Torah: “Do not become defiled with all of these” (Leviticus 18:24), would you also say that there too, one who is in violation of all of the prohibitions, yes, he is punished, but one who is in violation of one of them, no, he is not punished? Rather, clearly, “all of these” means in violation of one of all these; therefore, here too, the verse in Ezekiel: “And has kept all My statutes,” means that in fulfillment of one of all these one merits eternal life.
עָבַר עֲבֵירָה. תַּנְיָא: כֵּיצַד אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי? נִידּוֹן בְּזִיקָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה הַבָּאָה עָלָיו. חֲמוֹתוֹ וְנַעֲשֵׂית אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ – נִידּוֹן בַּחֲמוֹתוֹ. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְנַעֲשֵׂית חֲמוֹתוֹ – נִידּוֹן בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ.
§ The mishna teaches: If one violated one transgression for which he is liable to receive two death penalties, he is sentenced to the more severe form of execution. Rabbi Yosei says: He is sentenced to the form of execution that he is liable to receive due to the first relationship that came upon him. It is taught in a baraita: How, i.e., in what circumstances, does Rabbi Yosei say that he is sentenced to the first relationship that came upon him? If this woman was a widow or a divorcée when she became his mother-in-law, and then she became a married woman and he engaged in intercourse with her, he is sentenced to execution by burning for engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law. If before he married her daughter she was a married woman, and then she became his mother-in-law, and he engaged in intercourse with her, he is sentenced to execution by strangulation for engaging in intercourse with a married woman.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרָבָא: חֲמוֹתוֹ וְנַעֲשֵׂית אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, נִידּוֹן בַּחֲמוֹתוֹ?
Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: If this woman was a widow or a divorcée when she became his mother-in-law, and then she became a married woman and he engaged in intercourse with her, is he sentenced to execution by burning for engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law?
לִידּוֹן נָמֵי אַאִיסּוּר אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ! דְּהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּאִיסּוּר מוֹסִיף.
Why is this the halakha? Let him be sentenced for violating the prohibition of a married woman as well, as Rabbi Abbahu says: Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of an expanded prohibition. Rabbi Yosei holds that generally, a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. Nevertheless, when the second transgression is an expanded prohibition, i.e., one that incorporates additional people into the list of those for whom the items or individuals are forbidden, Rabbi Yosei concedes that since the second prohibition applies to others, it takes effect concerning the person included in the first prohibition as well. Here too, the prohibition of intercourse with a married woman is expanded, as it applies to everyone and is therefore more comprehensive than the prohibition of intercourse with his mother-in-law, which applies only to her sons-in-law. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yosei, he should be punished also for violating the prohibition of intercourse with a married woman.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדָּא בְּרִי, בִּתְרֵי קְטָלֵי קָטְלַתְּ לֵיהּ?
Rava said to him: Adda my son, will you kill him with two death penalties? Rabbi Yosei concedes that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a married woman takes effect in addition to the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law. If he had violated the transgression unwittingly, he would have been liable to bring two sin-offerings. But if he violated the transgression intentionally, it is impossible to execute him by strangulation after executing him by burning.
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁלָּקָה וְשָׁנָה, בֵּית דִּין מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה, וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעוֹרִין עַד שֶׁכְּרֵיסוֹ מִתְבַּקַּעַת.
MISHNA: One who was flogged for violating a prohibition and then repeated the violation and was flogged again assumes the status of a forewarned transgressor. The court places him into the vaulted chamber [lakippa] and feeds him barley bread until his belly ruptures due to the low-quality food, and he dies.
גְּמָ׳ מִשּׁוּם דְּלָקָה וְשָׁנָה, בֵּית דִּין כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: הָכָא בְּמַלְקִיּוֹת שֶׁל כָּרֵיתוֹת עָסְקִינַן, דְּגַבְרָא בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא, וְקָרוֹבֵי הוּא דְּלָא מְיקָרַב קְטָלֵיהּ. וְכֵיוָן דְּקָא מְוַותַּר לַהּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, מְקָרְבִינַן לֵיהּ לִקְטָלֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ.
GEMARA: Due to the fact that he was flogged and repeated the violation does the court place him into the vaulted chamber for the duration of his life and advance his death? Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Here, we are dealing with lashes administered for violations of prohibitions punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. As when one violates such a prohibition, the man is essentially liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven, but his death is not advanced by the court, as it is administered by the heavenly court. And in this case, since he surrenders his life through his repeated transgressions, we advance his execution upon him by placing him in the vaulted chamber.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא: תָּא אַסְבְּרָא לָךְ, בְּמַלְקִיּוֹת שֶׁל כָּרֵת אַחַת, אֲבָל שֶׁל שְׁתַּיִם וְשֶׁל שָׁלֹשׁ כָּרֵיתוֹת – אִיסּוּרֵי הוּא דְּקָא טָעֵים, וְלָא מְוַותַּר כּוּלֵּי הַאי.
Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: Come and I will explain to you the circumstances of this halakha. It is in a case where he was flogged with lashes for repeatedly violating one prohibition punishable with karet that he is considered to have surrendered his life. But if he received lashes for violating two or for violating three different prohibitions punishable with karet, he is not placed in the vaulted chamber, as he merely is tasting the taste of prohibition and wants to enjoy the different experiences, and he is not thereby surrendering his life to that extent.
מִי שֶׁלָּקָה וְשָׁנָה. שָׁנָה אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא שִׁילֵּשׁ. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? דְּאִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הָא אָמַר: עַד תְּלָת זִימְנֵי לָא הָוְיָא חֲזָקָה.
§ The mishna teaches: One who was flogged for violating a prohibition and then repeated the violation, the court places him into the vaulted chamber. The Gemara infers: He is placed in the vaulted chamber if he repeated the violation, doing it a second time, even if he did not again repeat the violation, doing it a third time. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, doesn’t he say: Presumptive status is not established until the action is performed three times? In his opinion, only after violating the prohibition three times would one assume the status of a forewarned transgressor.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, קָסָבַר עֲבֵירוֹת מַחֲזִיקוֹת.
Ravina rejects that proof and says: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the tanna holds that transgressions, not lashes, establish the presumptive status of a transgressor. Therefore, the mishna that teaches: One who was flogged for violating a prohibition and then repeated the violation and was flogged, is placed in the vaulted chamber only after he violated the prohibition a third time, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
מֵיתִיבִי: עָבַר עֲבֵירָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ מַלְקוֹת, פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ, וּשְׁלִישִׁית כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ, בָּרְבִיעִית כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה. מַאי לָאו דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מַלְקִיּוֹת מַחְזִיקוֹת, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל קָמִיפַּלְגִי?
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one performed a transgression that has lashes as its punishment, the first and the second time, the court flogs him; and the third time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber. Abba Shaul says: Even the third time the court flogs him; and the fourth time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber. What, is it not that everyone agrees that lashes establish the presumptive status of a transgressor, and it is concerning the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, whether presumptive status is established after two or three times, that the Rabbis and Abba Shaul disagree?
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר עֲבֵירוֹת מַחְזִיקוֹת, וּמָר סָבַר מַלְקִיּוֹת מַחְזִיקוֹת.
The Gemara rejects that parallel. No, it can be explained that everyone, the Rabbis and Abba Shaul, agrees with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that presumptive status is established after three times, and here it is with regard to this matter that they disagree: That one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: Transgressions establish the presumptive status of a transgressor, and after he is flogged twice and performs the transgression a third time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber; and one Sage, Abba Shaul, holds: Lashes establish the presumptive status of a transgressor, and it is only after he performs the third transgression and is flogged for that transgression that he assumes the status of a forewarned transgressor, and when he performs the transgression a fourth time, he is placed in the vaulted chamber.
וְהָדְתַנְיָא: הִתְרוּ בּוֹ וְשָׁתַק, הִתְרוּ בּוֹ וְהִרְכִּין רֹאשׁוֹ – פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה מַתְרִין בּוֹ, שְׁלִישִׁית – כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית מַתְרִין בּוֹ, בִּרְבִיעִית – כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה.
The Gemara questions that interpretation of the dispute. And that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where witnesses forewarned him that he was about to violate a prohibition punishable by lashes and he was silent and did not acknowledge that he accepted the forewarning, and likewise a case where the witnesses forewarned him and he bowed his head but did not explicitly acknowledge that he accepted the forewarning, the first and second time they forewarn him the court does not flog him, because he did not accept the forewarning. If this scenario occurs a third time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber. Abba Shaul says: Even the third time the witnesses forewarn him the court does not flog him; and the fourth time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber.
וְהָתָם, מַלְקוֹת לֵיכָּא. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר רָבִינָא: בְּכִיפָּה צְרִיכָה הַתְרָאָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
And there, in the case in the baraita, there are no lashes, as he did not explicitly acknowledge acceptance of the forewarning. The reference is to a case where one violated the transgression several times, and if their dispute is not with regard to the number of times required to establish presumptive status, with regard to what matter do they disagree? Ravina says: It is with regard to whether placing an individual into a vaulted chamber requires forewarning that they disagree. The Rabbis hold that once he disregarded the forewarning three times, the court places him in a vaulted chamber. Abba Shaul holds that after he is forewarned three times that he will be flogged if he performs the transgression, he requires additional forewarning, before the fourth time, that he will be placed in a vaulted chamber if he performs the transgression again.
וּמַאי כִּיפָּה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מְלֹא קוֹמָתוֹ. וְהֵיכָא רְמִיזָא? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״תְּמוֹתֵת רָשָׁע רָעָה״.
The Gemara clarifies: And what is the nature of this vaulted chamber? Rav Yehuda says: It is a small chamber that is the full height of the transgressor, and it does not allow him to move in it. The Gemara asks: And where is this punishment intimated? Reish Lakish said that it is intimated in the verse: “Evil shall kill the wicked” (Psalms 34:22). Ultimately, an evildoer finds his demise through his evil, and the result is this harsh form of death.
וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי [גַּם] לֹא יֵדַע הָאָדָם אֶת עִתּוֹ כַּדָּגִים שֶׁנֶּאֱחָזִים בִּמְצוֹדָה רָעָה״? מַאי ״מְצוֹדָה רָעָה״? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חַכָּה.
The Gemara cites a related statement. And Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For man also knows not his time, like fish snared in an evil net” (Ecclesiastes 9:12)? What is the nature of this evil net? Reish Lakish says: It is a hook; although it is small and the fish is much larger, the fish cannot escape it.
מַתְנִי׳ הַהוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים, מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לֶחֶם צָר וּמַיִם לָחַץ.
MISHNA: With regard to one who kills a person not in the presence of witnesses and it is impossible to judge him in court, the court places him into a vaulted chamber and feeds him sparing bread and scant water (see Isaiah 30:20).
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא יָדְעִינַן? אָמַר רַב: בְּעֵדוּת מְיוּחֶדֶת. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַתְרָאָה.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: If there are no witnesses, from where do we know that he killed a person and is liable to be punished? Rav says: The tanna of the mishna is speaking about a case of disjointed testimony, where the witnesses were not together and they witnessed the murder from different vantage points. The court cannot convict a person for committing a murder based on that type of testimony even though it is clear that the witnesses are telling the truth. And Shmuel says: The tanna of the mishna is speaking about a case where the witnesses testified that they witnessed the murder but there was no forewarning, and therefore the court cannot convict him.
וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי: כְּגוֹן דְּאִיתַּכְחוּשׁ בִּבְדִיקוֹת וְלָא אִיתַּכְחוּשׁ בַּחֲקִירוֹת, כְּדִתְנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָדַק בֶּן זַכַּאי בְּעוּקְצֵי תְאֵנִים.
And Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says: The tanna of the mishna is speaking of a case where the witnesses contradicted each other in the examinations that involve matters peripheral to the murder but did not contradict each other in the interrogations, which are integral to the murder, i.e., time and place. Therefore, it is clear to the court that the accused is guilty and consequently they place him in the vaulted chamber. As we learned in a mishna (40a): There was an incident and ben Zakkai examined the witnesses with regard to the stems of figs on the fig tree beneath which the murder took place. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai questioned the witnesses about the thickness of the stems in order to determine whether they would contradict each other in this peripheral detail in order to save the accused (see 41a).
וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לֶחֶם צָר וּמַיִם לָחַץ. מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּקָתָנֵי: נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לֶחֶם צָר וּמַיִם לָחַץ, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דְּקָתָנֵי: מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעוֹרִין עַד שֶׁכְּרֵיסוֹ מִתְבַּקַּעַת? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לֶחֶם צָר וּמַיִם לָחַץ עַד שֶׁיּוּקְטַן מַעְיָינוֹ, וַהֲדַר מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעוֹרִין עַד שֶׁכְּרֵיסוֹ מִתְבַּקַּעַת.
The mishna teaches: And feeds him sparing bread and scant water. The Gemara asks: What is different in the mishna here that the tanna teaches that the court gives him sparing bread and scant water in the vaulted chamber, and what is different in the previous mishna there that the tanna teaches that the court feeds him barley bread until his belly ruptures; are these two different punishments? Rav Sheshet says: Both this and that are one punishment; first, the court gives him sparing bread and scant water until his intestines contract due to his starvation diet, and then the court feeds him barley bread that expands in his innards until his belly ruptures.
מַתְנִי׳ הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת הַקַּסְוָה, וְהַמְקַלֵּל בְּקוֹסֵם, וְהַבּוֹעֵל אֲרַמִּית – קַנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. כֹּהֵן שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ בְּטוּמְאָה – אֵין אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין, אֶלָּא פִּרְחֵי כְהוּנָּה מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה וּמְפַצְיעִין אֶת מוֹחוֹ בִּגְזִירִין. זָר שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶנֶק, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם.
MISHNA: With regard to one who steals a kasva, and one who curses with a sorcerer, and one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots strike him and kill him. Although the Torah does not say that one who performs one of these actions is liable to be executed, it is permitted for anyone who zealously takes the vengeance of the Lord to do so. In the case of a priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity, his priestly brethren do not bring him to court for judgment; rather, the young men of the priesthood remove him from the Temple courtyard and pierce his skull with pieces of wood. In the case of a non-priest who performed the service in the Temple, Rabbi Akiva says: His execution is by strangulation, and the Rabbis say: He is not executed with a court-imposed death penalty; rather, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי קַסְוָה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כְּלִי שָׁרֵת. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֶת קְשׂוֹת הַנָּסֶךְ״. וְהֵיכָא רְמִיזָא? ״וְלֹא יָבֹאוּ לִרְאוֹת כְּבַלַּע אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ וָמֵתוּ״.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the kasva mentioned in the mishna? Rav Yehuda says: It is a term used to describe any service vessel utilized in the Temple. And likewise, it is stated: “And the jars [kesot] with which to pour libations” (Numbers 4:7). The Gemara asks: And where is it intimated that one who steals a service vessel is liable to be killed by zealots? The Gemara answers that it is intimated in the verse: “But they shall not come to see the sacred items as they are being covered [kevala], lest they die” (Numbers 4:20). The Gemara interprets the term kevala as one who ingests, i.e., who takes (see Job 20:15), and the verse thereby teaches that one who steals a service vessel is liable to be killed.
וְהַמְקַלֵּל בְּקוֹסֵם. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: יַכֶּה קוֹסֵם אֶת קוֹסְמוֹ. רַבָּנַן, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר מָרִי, אָמְרִי: יַכֵּהוּ קוֹסֵם לוֹ וּלְקוֹנוֹ וּלְמַקְנוֹ.
The mishna teaches: And one who curses with a sorcerer is among those liable to be killed by zealots. Rav Yosef teaches that the reference is to one who says: Let the sorcerer strike his sorcerer, meaning one who curses God in the name of idol worship. He does not explicitly say God’s name, but he believes that a sorcerer can curse the sorcerer who provided him with his powers, i.e., the Divine Presence. The Rabbis, and some say that it was Rabba, son of Mari, say that the reference is to one who says: Let the sorcerer strike him, i.e., the individual with whom he is quarreling, and his Creator and his Provider. Since he curses God, it is permitted for zealots to kill him.
וְהַבּוֹעֵל אֲרַמִּית, בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא מֵרַב:
The mishna teaches that one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman is among those liable to be killed by zealots. Rav Kahana asked of Rav:
