Sanhedrin 84

וערל בשר לא יבוא אל מקדשי (לשרתני)

or uncircumcised in flesh may enter My Temple” (Ezekiel 44:9).

אונן מנלן דכתיב ומן המקדש לא יצא ולא יחלל את מקדש אלהיו הא אחר שלא יצא חילל

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that it is prohibited for an acute mourner priest to perform the Temple service? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to a High Priest whose mother or father died: “And from the Temple he shall not emerge and he shall not desecrate the Temple of his God” (Leviticus 21:12), from which it may be inferred that another, who is not a High Priest but an ordinary priest, who did not emerge from the Temple and who continued to perform the service, has desecrated the service.

אמר ליה רב אדא לרבא ונילף חילול חילול מתרומה מה להלן במיתה אף כאן במיתה

Rav Adda said to Rava: And let us derive it by means of a verbal analogy: Derive the meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to an acute mourner who performs the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma. Just as there, with regard to teruma, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to an acute mourner who performs the Temple service, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

מי כתיב ביה בגופיה מכללא קאתי הוי דבר הבא מן הכלל וכל דבר הבא מן הכלל אין דנין אותו בגזרה שוה

Rava answers: Is desecration written with regard to the matter of a priest who performs the Temple service as an acute mourner itself? It is derived from that which is written with regard to the High Priest, by inference. Therefore, it is a matter that emerges from an inference, and the principle is: Any matter that emerges from an inference cannot be derived by means of a verbal analogy. A verbal analogy can be derived only when the matter is written explicitly.

יושב מנלן אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן אמר קרא כי בו בחר ה׳ אלהיך מכל שבטיך לעמד לשרת לעמידה בחרתיו ולא לישיבה

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that it is prohibited for a priest who is seated to perform the Temple service? Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: The verse states: “For him has the Lord chosen from among all your tribes, to stand and minister in the name of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:5). God states in the verse that I chose him for service while he is standing, but not for service while seated.

בעל מום רבי אומר במיתה וחכמים אומרים באזהרה מאי טעמא דרבי דכתיב אך אל הפרכת לא יבא וגו׳ ויליף חילול חילול מתרומה מה להלן במיתה אף כאן במיתה

§ The baraita continues: With regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is as it is written: “But he shall not come into the curtain and he shall not approach the altar as he has a blemish, that he desecrate not My sacred places” (Leviticus 21:23). And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the punishment by means of a verbal analogy: The meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service is derived from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma. Just as there, with regard to teruma, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

ונילף חילול חילול מנותר מה להלן בכרת אף כאן בכרת

The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the punishment by means of a different verbal analogy: Derive the meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to notar. Just as there, with regard to notar, he is punished with karet, so too here, with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with karet.

מסתברא מתרומה הוה ליה למילף שכן פסול הגוף מפסול הגוף אדרבה מנותר הוה ליה למילף שכן קודש פנים פיגול ונותר

The Gemara explains: It is reasonable to say that he should have derived the punishment for a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from teruma, as the tanna derives the bodily disqualification of a blemished priest from the bodily disqualification of the impure priest. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, he should have derived the punishment for a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from notar, as there are elements common to notar and a blemished priest who performs the Temple service. Unlike teruma, both are cases involving sacrificial matters; both involve matters performed inside the Temple; and in both cases, the disqualification of piggul and the disqualification of notar are applicable.

אלא מטמא ששימש גמר פסול הגוף מפסול הגוף קודש פנים פיגול ונותר מקודש פנים פיגול ונותר

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the halakha of a blemished priest who performed the Temple service from the halakha of an impure priest who performed the Temple service, due to the elements common to both. He derives the bodily disqualification of a blemished priest from the bodily disqualification of an impure priest who performs the Temple service, and he derives the case of a blemished priest, whose case involves sacrificial matters, matters performed inside the Temple, and the relevance of both piggul and notar, from the case of an impure priest, whose case involves sacrificial matters, matters performed inside the Temple, and the relevance of both piggul and notar.

ורבנן אמר קרא בו ולא בבעל מום

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what is the reason that they hold that he is liable only for violating a prohibition? It is as the verse states: “And die because of it if they desecrate it; I am the Lord Who sanctifies them” (Leviticus 22:9), from which it is derived: “Because of it” they receive death at the hand of Heaven, but not in the case of a blemished priest.

הזיד במעילה רבי אומר במיתה וחכמים אומרים באזהרה מאי טעמא דרבי אמר רבי אבהו גמר חטא חטא מתרומה מה להלן במיתה אף כאן במיתה

The baraita continues: With regard to one who intentionally performed an action of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Rabbi Abbahu says: He derives a verbal analogy: The meaning of the term of sin written with regard to one who intentionally misuses consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:15) is derived from the term of sin written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma (see Leviticus 22:9). Just as there, with regard to teruma, the priest is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, one who intentionally misuses consecrated property is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

ורבנן אמרי אמר קרא בו בו ולא במעילה

The Gemara explains: And the Rabbis say that the verse states with regard to teruma: “Because of it” they receive death at the hand of Heaven, but not in the case of the intentional misuse of consecrated property.

זר ששימש במקדש תניא רבי ישמעאל אומר נאמר כאן ׳והזר הקרב יומת׳ ונאמר להלן ׳כל הקרב הקרב אל משכן ה׳ ימות׳ מה להלן בידי שמים אף כאן בידי שמים

The Gemara cites a dispute between the Sages with regard to the punishment of a non-priest who performed the Temple service. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: It is stated here: “You and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood in everything that pertains to the altar…and any non-priest who approaches shall be put to death [yumat]” (Numbers 18:7), and it is stated there: “Anyone who approaches the Tabernacle of the Lord shall die [yamut]” (Numbers 17:28). Just as there, the reference is to death at the hand of Heaven; so too here, in the case of a non-priest who performs the Temple service, the reference is to death at the hand of Heaven.

רבי עקיבא אומר נאמר כאן ׳והזר הקרב יומת׳ ונאמר להלן ׳והנביא ההוא או חלם החלום ההוא יומת׳ מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר מה להלן בחנק אף כאן בחנק

Rabbi Akiva says that it is stated here: “And any non-priest who approaches shall be put to death [yumat]” and it is stated there: “And that prophet or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death [yumat]” (Deuteronomy 13:6). Just as there, with regard to the prophet, he is executed by stoning, so too here, a non-priest who performs the Temple service is executed by stoning. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Just as there, with regard to the prophet, he is executed by strangulation, so too here, a non-priest who performs the Temple service is executed by strangulation.

במאי קמיפלגי רבי ישמעאל ורבי עקיבא רבי עקיבא סבר דנין יומת מיומת ואין דנין יומת מימות ורבי ישמעאל סבר דנין הדיוט מהדיוט ואין דנין הדיוט מנביא ורבי עקיבא כיון שהדיח אין לך הדיוט גדול מזה

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva holds: In the verbal analogy, one derives yumat from yumat and one does not derive yumat from yamut. And Rabbi Yishmael holds: Although the terms are not identical, one derives by means of a verbal analogy the halakha of an ordinary person from the halakha of an ordinary person and one does not derive the halakha of an ordinary person from the halakha of a prophet. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva hold? Once the prophet incited others to idol worship, you have no greater example of an ordinary person than that, i.e., he no longer has the status of a prophet.

במאי קמיפלגי רבי עקיבא ורבי יוחנן בן נורי בפלוגתא דרבי שמעון ורבנן דתניא נביא שהדיח בסקילה רבי שמעון אומר בחנק הא אנן תנן רבי עקיבא אומר בחנק

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: A prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: He is executed by strangulation. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in a mishna with regard to a prophet who incites others to idol worship that Rabbi Akiva says: He is executed by strangulation, contrary to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion cited in the baraita?

תרי תנאי ואליבא דרבי עקיבא מתניתין רבי שמעון ואליבא דרבי עקיבא ברייתא רבנן ואליבא דרבי עקיבא

The Gemara answers: These are two tanna’im and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The mishna, which cites the opinion that Rabbi Akiva holds that a prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by strangulation, is citing the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon was his preeminent disciple. The baraita, which cites the opinion that Rabbi Akiva holds that a prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by stoning, is citing the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, and they too hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

הדרן עלך אלו הן הנשרפין

מתני׳ אלו הן הנחנקין המכה אביו ואמו וגונב נפש מישראל וזקן ממרא על פי בית דין ונביא השקר והמתנבא בשם עבודה זרה והבא על אשת איש וזוממי בת כהן ובועלה

MISHNA: These are the transgressors who are strangled in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who strikes his father or his mother, and one who abducts a Jewish person, and a rebellious elder according to the court, and a false prophet, and one who prophesies in the name of idol worship, and one who engages in intercourse with a married woman, and conspiring witnesses who testify that the daughter of a priest committed adultery, even though were she guilty, she would be executed by burning. And her paramour is also executed via strangulation as in any case where a man engages in intercourse with a married woman.

גמ׳ מכה אביו ואמו מנלן דכתיב ומכה אביו ואמו מות יומת וכל מיתה האמורה בתורה סתם אינה אלא חנק

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One who strikes his father or his mother is executed by strangulation. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “One who strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:15), and every death stated in the Torah without specification is referring to nothing other than strangulation.

אימא עד דקטיל ליה מיקטל סלקא דעתך קטל חד בסייף ואביו בחנק

The Gemara suggests: Say that one is not executed for striking his father or mother unless he kills him or her. The Gemara explains: Does it enter your mind to say that if one kills one other person, he is executed by beheading with a sword, but if he kills his father or mother he is executed by strangulation? That is not reasonable.

הניחא למאן דאמר חנק קל אלא למאן דאמר חנק חמור מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that strangulation is a more lenient form of execu-tion than decapitation. But according to the one who said that strangulation is a more severe form of execution than decapitation, what is there to say? Perhaps one is liable to receive the death penalty for striking his father or mother only if he kills the parent, and the added severity for killing a parent is in terms of the specific form of death penalty.

אלא מדכתיב מכה איש ומת מות יומת וכתיב או באיבה הכהו בידו וימת שמע מינה כל היכא דאיכא הכאה סתם לאו מיתה הוא

The Gemara answers: Rather, prove that one is executed by strangulation for striking his father or mother even if he does not kill them from the fact that it is written: “One who strikes a man and he dies shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:12), and it is written: “Or if in enmity he struck him with his hand and he died he shall be put to death” (Numbers 35:21). Learn from these verses in which it states: Strikes and he dies, that anywhere that there is mention of striking without specifying a resultant death, it is not referring to a case where the blow caused one’s death.

ואיצטריך למיכתב מכה איש ואיצטריך למכתב כל מכה נפש דאי כתב רחמנא מכה איש ומת הוה אמינא איש דבר מצוה אין קטן לא כתב רחמנא כל מכה נפש ואי כתב רחמנא כל מכה נפש הוה אמינא אפילו נפלים אפילו בן שמונה צריכי

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for the Torah to write: “One who strikes a man,” and it was necessary for the Torah to write: “Anyone who kills a soul, the murderer shall be slain on the basis of witnesses” (Numbers 35:30), since if the Merciful One wrote only: “One who strikes a man and he dies,” I would say that one who strikes a man, i.e., an adult, who is obligated in the fulfillment of mitzvot, yes, he is executed, but one who kills a minor, no, he is not executed. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Anyone who kills a soul.” And if the Merciful One wrote only: “Anyone who kills a soul,” I would say that one is executed even if he killed a non-viable newborn, or even if he killed a child born after a gestation period of eight months, who, in talmudic times, was also considered non-viable. Consequently, both verses are necessary.

ואימא אף על גב דלא עביד ביה חבורה אלמה תנן המכה אביו ואמו אינו חייב עד שיעשה בהן חבורה

The Gemara asks: But if that is the source for the halakha that one is liable for striking his father or mother, why not say that he is liable even though he did not wound him or her and draw blood? Why, then, did we learn in a mishna (85b): One who strikes his father and his mother is not liable unless he wounds them?

אמר קרא מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה עד דעביד בה חבורה דכתיב בה נפש אף מכה אדם עד דעביד חבורה

The Gemara answers that the verse states: “And one who strikes an animal shall pay for it; and one who strikes a person shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:21), juxtaposing one who strikes an individual with one who strikes an animal. An earlier verse states: “One who strikes the soul of an animal shall pay for it” (Leviticus 24:18). Based on this it is derived: Just as one who strikes an animal is not liable unless he wounds it and draws blood, as “soul” is written concerning it, and it can be derived from the verse: “For the blood is the soul” (Deuteronomy 12:23), that the term “soul” is a reference to blood, so too, one who strikes a person is not liable unless he causes a wound and draws blood.

מתקיף לה רב ירמיה אלא מעתה הכחישה באבנים הכי נמי דלא מיחייב אלא אם אינו ענין לנפש בהמה דהא אי נמי הכחישה באבנים חייב תניהו ענין לנפש אדם

Rav Yirmeya objects to this proof: If that is so, then in a case where one weakened the animal by placing a burden of stones upon it and thereby injured or killed it, would one say that so too in that case he is not liable because he did not draw blood? Clearly he is liable to pay for the damage that he caused. Rather, with regard to the term soul in the verse: “One who strikes the soul of an animal,” if it is not a matter that is relevant to the soul of an animal, as even in a case where one weakens the animal by placing a burden of stones upon it, he is liable, apply it to the matter of the soul of a person, and thereby derive that one who strikes his parent is liable to be executed only if he wounds his parent and draws blood.

אלא הקישא למה לי לכדתניא דבי חזקיה

The Gemara asks: But if the fact that one who strikes his parent is liable only if he draws blood is derived based on the principle: If it is not a matter, why do I need the juxtaposition between the striking of a man and the striking of an animal? The Gemara answers: The juxtaposition is necessary in order to derive the halakha for that which is taught in a baraita in the school of Ḥizkiyya: Just as in the case of one who strikes an animal there is no distinction between one who does so unwittingly and one who does so intentionally, and in both cases he is liable to pay damages, so too, in the case of one who strikes a person there is no distinction between one who does so intentionally and is executed, and one who does so unwittingly and is not executed. In both cases he is exempt from paying damages based on the principle that one receives only the greater punishment.

הניחא למאן דאית ליה תנא דבי חזקיה אלא למאן דלית ליה תנא דבי חזקיה היקישא למה לי

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who holds in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of the school of Ḥizkiyya, but according to the one who does not hold in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of the school of Ḥizkiyya, why do I need the juxtaposition between the striking of a man and the striking of an animal?

מה מכה בהמה לרפואה פטור אף מכה אדם לרפואה פטור

The Gemara answers: He derives that just as one who strikes an animal for medical purposes is exempt from payment of restitution, so too, one who strikes a person for medical purposes is exempt, even if it results in the death of the one that he treated.

דאיבעיא להו בן מהו שיקיז דם לאביו רב מתנא אמר ואהבת לרעך כמוך רב דימי בר חיננא אמר מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לרפואה פטור אף מכה אדם לרפואה פטור

The Gemara explains: As a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to whether a son may let blood for his father? Is he liable for wounding his father? Rav Mattana says that it is written: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18); just as one would want others to heal him when the need arises, one must heal others when the need arises. It is prohibited for one to do to others only those actions that he would not want done to him. Therefore, it is permitted for one to heal his father even if the procedure entails wounding him. Rav Dimi bar Ḥinnana says: This is derived from the juxtaposition between one who strikes a person and one who strikes an animal. Just as one who strikes an animal for medical purposes is exempt from paying restitution, so too, one who strikes a person for medical purposes is exempt from liability.

רב לא שביק לבריה למישקל ליה סילוא מר בריה דרבינא לא שביק לבריה למיפתח ליה כוותא דילמא חביל והוה ליה שגגת איסור

The Gemara relates: Rav did not allow his son to extract a thorn from him, due to the concern that his son would unwittingly wound him. Mar, son of Ravina, did not allow his son to pierce his blister, lest he wound him, which would be an unwitting violation of a prohibition.

אי הכי אחר נמי אחר שיגגת לאו בנו שגגת חנק

The Gemara challenges this: If so, this should be a concern when another who is not his son treats him as well, as it is prohibited for one Jew to injure another. The Gemara explains: There is a distinction, as when another treats him, the concern is that the individual would be in unwitting violation of a prohibition. By contrast, when his son treats him, the concern is that he would be in unwitting violation of a prohibition punishable by strangulation.

והדתנן מחט של יד ליטול בה את הקוץ ליחוש דילמא חביל והויא לה שגגת סקילה

The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 122b): It is permitted on Shabbat to move an ordinary hand needle used for sewing garments to extract a thorn with it, why is it permitted to extract a thorn on Shabbat? Let us be concerned lest he wound the individual in the process, which would be an unwitting violation of a prohibition punishable by stoning.

התם מקלקל הוא

The Gemara answers: There, even if one wounds the individual, he is unwittingly performing a labor for a destructive purpose, i.e., he is causing an injury, and one is liable to be executed only for the performance of a labor for a constructive purpose on Shabbat.

הניחא למאן דאמר מקלקל פטור אלא למאן דאמר חייב מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that one who performs a labor on Shabbat for a destructive purpose is exempt. But according to the one who said that even when performing the labor for a destructive purpose, there are cases where one is liable if he benefits from the action, what is there to say?

מאן שמעת ליה דאמר מקלקל בחבורה חייב רבי שמעון היא

The Gemara answers: Whom did you hear that said that one who is destructive in causing a wound is liable to be executed if there is a constructive element to his action? It is Rabbi Shimon,