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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 10, 2017 | 讻壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sanhedrin 86

What type of kidnapping does one get the death penalty for?聽 It must include kidnapping and selling into slavery.聽 Could two witnesses testify that one kidnapped and a different two testify that one sold?聽 Would that be considered two separate testimonies that each stand alone or is each only half a testimony?聽 If it is half a testimony, then there is a debate about whether partial testimony is acceptable or not?


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

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 壮诪讗讞讬讜壮 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗谞讜 诪专砖讜转 讗讞讬讜 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讞讬讬讘 转谞讬 驻讟讜专

A tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall recited that baraita, where the tanna holds that one is liable for abducting another and selling him to the abductee鈥檚 father, before Rav Sheshet. Rav Sheshet said to him: I teach that Rabbi Shimon says: From the term 鈥渙f his brethren鈥 it is derived that there is no liability unless he removes the abductee from the domain of his brethren, and you say that one who sells the abductee to his father is liable? Emend the baraita and teach instead: He is exempt.

诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: What is the difficulty raised by Rav Sheshet? Perhaps that statement that he cited is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while this baraita is the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住转诐 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住转诐 转讜住驻转讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 住转诐 住驻专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住转诐 住驻专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讜诇讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara responds: That should not enter your mind, as the unattributed baraita that was cited is a passage from the halakhic midrash on the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy entitled Sifrei, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: An unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; an unattributed baraita in the Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya; an unattributed baraita in the Sifra, the halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; and an unattributed baraita in the Sifrei is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And all of these are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as all the Sages mentioned were his disciples. Therefore, it is unlikely that an unattributed baraita from the Sifrei would run counter to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讛讙讜谞讘 讘谞讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the liability of one who abducts his son. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem him exempt?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪爪讜讬

Abaye said: It is derived from the verse that states: 鈥淚f a man shall be found abducting a person of his brethren鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:7), to exclude one who is already found in the custody of the abductor before the abduction. Since the son is already in the custody of his father, the father is not liable for abducting him.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻讬 讬诪爪讗 讗讬砖 砖讻讘 注诐 讗砖讛 讘注诇转 讘注诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讬 讬诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪爪讜讬 讻讙讜谉 砖诇 讘讬转 驻诇讜谞讬 讚砖讻讬讞谉 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讬专讬

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If that is so, then the verse: 鈥淚f a man shall be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:22), may also be interpreted: 鈥淚f a man shall be found,鈥 to exclude one who was already found. So too, would one say that adulterers are exempt from liability if they commit adultery in, for example, the house of so-and-so, where married women are commonly found and they have a preexisting reputation for licentiousness?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪讜谞诪爪讗 讘讬讚讜 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Abaye said to Rav Pappa: The Rabbis鈥 opinion is derived from the phrase: 鈥淥r if he is found in his possession, he shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:16), from which I am saying my inference, that it is derived: If he is found, to the exclusion of one who was already found.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻讱 讛谞讬 诪讬拽专讬 讚专讚拽讬 讜诪转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪爪讜讬讬谉 讘讬讚谉 讚诪讜 讜驻讟讬专讬

Rava said: Therefore, with regard to those teachers of children [dardekei] and those who recite mishnayot to Torah scholars, the status of their students is as though they are found in their possession, and the teachers are exempt from liability for abducting them.

讙谞讘 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 讜讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇注讘讚讬诐 讘讜砖转

搂 The mishna teaches that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to liability if one abducted one who is half-slave half-freeman. We learned in a mishna there (Bava Kamma 87a) that Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no indemnity for the humiliation of a slave, since he is not a full-fledged Jew.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬谞爪讜 讗谞砖讬诐 讬讞讚讜 讗讬砖 讜讗讞讬讜 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讞讜讛 讬爪讗 注讘讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讞讜讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is derived from the verse that states: 鈥淲hen men struggle together, a man and his brother, and the wife of the one drew near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who smites him, and extended her hand, and grabbed his genitals鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:11). This is the source for liability to pay restitution for humiliating another. From the term 鈥渉is brother鈥 it is derived that one who has brotherhood, i.e., who is halakhically related to his biological family, receives payment for humiliation. A slave is excluded, as he has no brotherhood, i.e., he is not halakhically related to his family.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗 讘诪爪讜转

And what is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis? They hold that although the slave has no family ties, he is the brother of the assailant with regard to the fulfillment of mitzvot, as a Canaanite slave is obligated to fulfill the same mitzvot that a woman is obligated to fulfill.

讜讛讻讗 讛讬讻讬 讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: And here, with regard to abduction, how does Rabbi Yehuda interpret the verses and arrive at the conclusion that one is liable for abducting one who is half-slave half-freeman? Shouldn鈥檛 the term 鈥渇rom his brethren鈥 render exempt from liability one who abducts a slave?

住讘专 诪讗讞讬讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注讘讚讬诐 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诪讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the term in the verse: 鈥淔rom his brethren鈥 (Deuteronomy (24:7), serves to exclude from liability one who abducts slaves. Had the verse continued: The children of Israel, that phrase would have been interpreted to exclude from liability one who abducts one who is half-slave half-freeman. Since the verse states: 鈥淔rom the children of Israel,鈥 the prefix letter mem, meaning from, indicates that there are some from the children of Israel for whose abduction one is liable and there are some for whose abduction one is exempt. That prefix also serves to exclude from liability one who abducts one who is half-slave half-freeman. Therefore, this is an example of a restriction following a restriction, and there is a hermeneutical principle that a restriction following a restriction serves only to amplify the halakha and to include in the category of those who are liable one who abducts one who is half-slave half-freeman.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讞讬讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注讘讚讬诐 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讛讜 讚讛讗 讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗 讘诪爪讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讘讚 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉

And the Rabbis, who deem one who abducts one who is half-slave half-freeman exempt, how do they interpret the verse? They do not exclude slaves based on the term 鈥渇rom his brethren,鈥 as the slave is the brother of the abductor with regard to the fulfillment of mitzvot. Concerning the expression 鈥渃hildren of Israel鈥 and the more expanded expression 鈥渇rom the children of Israel,鈥 one serves to exclude from liability one who abducts slaves, as the slave is not a full-fledged Jew, and one serves to exclude from liability one who abducts one who is half-slave half-freeman.

讗讝讛专讛 诇讙讜谞讘 谞驻砖 诪谞讬谉 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗诪专 诪诇讗 转讙谞讘 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪诇讗 讬诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专转 注讘讚 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讗讜 讚讙谞讬讘讛 讜诪专 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讗讜 讚诪讻讬专讛

搂 The Gemara asks: From where is a prohibition against abducting a person derived? Rabbi Yoshiya says that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not steal鈥 (Exodus 20:13). Rabbi Yo岣nan says that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淭hey shall not be sold as slaves鈥 (Leviticus 25:42). The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree, as each requires both verses to derive the prohibition. One Sage, Rabbi Yoshiya, enumerates the prohibition against abduction, and one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, enumerates the prohibition against selling the abductee into slavery.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮诇讗 转讙谞讘壮 讘讙讜谞讘 谞驻砖讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讙讜谞讘 谞驻砖讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讙讜谞讘 诪诪讜谉 讗诪专转 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 诪讚讜转 砖讛转讜专讛 谞讚专砖转 讘讛谉 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 诪注谞讬讬谞讜 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讘谞驻砖讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘谞驻砖讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita: 鈥淵ou shall not steal鈥 (Exodus 20:13), and it is with regard to one who abducts people that the verse is speaking. Do you say that the verse is speaking with regard to one who abducts people, or perhaps the verse is speaking only with regard to one who steals property? You say: Go out and learn from one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles: A matter derived from its context. With regard to what context are the adjacent prohibitions 鈥淵ou shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery鈥 in the verse speaking? They are speaking with regard to capital cases. So too here, the prohibition is speaking with regard to a capital case of abduction.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 壮诇讗 转讙谞讘讜壮 讘讙讜谞讘 诪诪讜谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讙讜谞讘 诪诪讜谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讙讜谞讘 谞驻砖讜转 讗诪专转 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 诪讚讜转 砖讛转讜专讛 谞讚专砖转 讘讛谉 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 诪注谞讬谞讜 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讘诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪诪讜谉

It is taught in another baraita: 鈥淵ou shall not steal鈥 (Leviticus 19:11), and it is with regard to one who steals property that the verse is speaking. Do you say that the verse is speaking with regard to one who steals property, or perhaps the verse is speaking only with regard to one who abducts people? You say: Go out and learn from one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles: A matter derived from its context. With regard to what context is the subsequent verse: 鈥淵ou shall neither exploit your neighbor nor rob him鈥 (Leviticus 19:13), speaking? It is speaking with regard to property. So too here, the verse is speaking with regard to property.

讗讬转诪专 注讬讚讬 讙谞讬讘讛 讜注讬讚讬 诪讻讬专讛 讘谞驻砖 砖讛讜讝诪讜 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讛专讙讬谉

It was stated: If the witnesses to the abduction and the witnesses to the sale of a person were rendered conspiring witnesses, 岣zkiyya says: The typical sentence of conspiring witnesses is not implemented and they are not executed. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They are executed.

讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讚讘专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讚讘专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪讬 讚讘专

The Gemara elaborates: It is 岣zkiyya who said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said one derives from the verse: 鈥淥n the basis of two witnesses鈥hall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15), that the testimony of witnesses is valid only when they attest to an entire matter, but not to half a matter. Since each pair of witnesses provides testimony concerning only half the transgression for which the perpetrator would be liable, i.e., they each testify to only the abduction or the sale, the testimony of each pair is not valid. Therefore, when they are deemed conspiring witnesses, they are not executed. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says his statement in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said that one derives from the verse that the testimony is valid when they testify with regard to an entire matter, and even when they testify with regard to half a matter. Since the testimony of the two pairs of witnesses together constitutes a complete testimony, if they are rendered conspiring witnesses, they are executed.

讜诪讜讚讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 砖诇 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 砖讛讜讝诪讜 砖谞讛专讙讬谉 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇讬诐 诇讜诪专 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐

The Gemara notes: And 岣zkiyya concedes with regard to the final witnesses of a stubborn and rebellious son who were rendered conspiring witnesses that they are executed. A stubborn and rebellious son is executed only if witnesses testified that he engaged in gluttonous and drunken conduct and he was flogged, and then a second pair of witnesses testifies that he again engaged in gluttonous and drunken conduct. His death sentence is based solely on the testimony of the second pair, as the first witnesses could say:

诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讘讗谞讜 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讻讜诇讬 讚讘专 拽讗 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛

It is in order to flog him, not to execute him, that we came to court. And these other witnesses, through their testimony, are the ones who did this to him, i.e., they are responsible for the entire matter of his execution, and are therefore liable to be executed for giving conspiring testimony.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 注讬讚讬 诪讻讬专讛 谞诪讬 诇讬拽讟诇讬讛 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇讬谉 注讬讚讬 讙谞讬讘讛 诇讜诪专 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讘讗谞讜 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚拽住讘专 讞讝拽讬讛 讚诇讗 诇拽讬

Rav Pappa objects to this: If so, and 岣zkiyya concedes to Rabbi Yo岣nan in the case of the final testimony of the stubborn and rebellious son, let them also execute the witnesses to the sale of one who was abducted, as the witnesses to the abduction could say: It is in order to flog the abductor, not to execute him, that we came to court. And if you would say that 岣zkiyya holds that one who abducts another and does not sell him is not flogged, that is difficult.

讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注讬讚讬 讙谞讬讘讛 讘谞驻砖 砖讛讜讝诪讜 讞讝拽讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讜拽讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 转住转讬讬诐 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讬谉 诪讚讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉

But wasn鈥檛 it stated: With regard to witnesses to the abduction who were rendered conspiring witnesses prior to the testimony of the witnesses to the sale, 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree. One says: They are flogged, and one says: They are not flogged. And we say: It may be concluded that it is 岣zkiyya who said that they are flogged, from the fact that 岣zkiyya said: They are not executed.

讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 谞讛专讙讬谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讗讝讛专转 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讗讝讛专转 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 诇拽讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讛讬讻讬 诇拽讜

Since if one were to suggest that it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who said that they are flogged, that cannot be. Since he says that conspiring witnesses are executed in this case, it is a prohibition that is given as a warning of liability for a court-imposed death penalty, and the principle is: With regard to any prohibition that is given as a warning of liability for a court-imposed death penalty, one is not flogged for its violation, even in a case where the transgressor is not executed. The abductor is not flogged. How then could the conspiring witnesses be flogged for testifying against them, as the punishment for conspiring witnesses is identical to the punishment of the one against whom they testified? Rather, it is certain that 岣zkiyya holds that the conspiring witnesses to the abduction are flogged, and therefore everyone agrees that the conspiring witnesses to the sale are executed.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘注讬讚讬 诪讻讬专讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚谞讛专讙讬谉 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘注讬讚讬 讙谞讬讘讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讙谞讬讘讛 诇讞讜讚讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讜诪讻讬专讛 诇讞讜讚讛 拽讬讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讛专讙讬谉 讙谞讬讘讛 讗转讞诇转讗 讚诪讻讬专讛 讛讬讗

Rather, Rav Pappa says: The previous explanation is rejected, and instead the dispute must be explained as follows: With regard to the witnesses to the sale of the abductee, it is clear that everyone agrees that they are executed, as theirs is testimony concerning an entire matter and would have led to his execution. When they disagree, it is with regard to the witnesses to the abduction. 岣zkiyya says: They are not executed, as he holds that abduction stands discrete as an independent prohibition punishable by lashes, and the sale stands discrete as an independent prohibition punishable by strangulation. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They are executed, as the abduction is the beginning of the process that culminates with the sale. The witnesses testifying to the abduction are testifying to a transgression that will culminate with the sale of the abductee.

讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖诇 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 砖讛讜讝诪讜 砖讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讘讗谞讜

The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yo岣nan concedes with regard to the initial witnesses concerning a stubborn and rebellious son who testified that he engaged in gluttonous and drunken conduct and who were rendered conspiring witnesses that they are not executed, as they could say: It is in order to flog him for past conduct, not to execute him for actions that he might perform in the future, that we came to court. Therefore, there is no connection between their testimony and punishment for future actions.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讜讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛

Abaye said in summary: All concede in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son, and all concede in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son, and there is a dispute with regard to a stubborn and rebellious son.

讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讘注讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讘讗谞讜

The Gemara elaborates: With regard to the initial witnesses, all, even Rabbi Yo岣nan, concede in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son that they are not executed if they are rendered conspiring witnesses, as they could say: It is in order to flog him for past conduct, not to execute him, that we came to court.

讜讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讘注讚讬诐 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 砖谞讛专讙讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖注讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讘讗谞讜 讜讛谞讬 讻讜诇讬讛 讚讘专 拽讗 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛

And with regard to the final witnesses, all, even 岣zkiyya, concede in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son that they are executed if they are rendered conspiring witnesses, due to the fact that the initial witnesses could say: It is in order to flog him for past conduct that we came to court, and these final witnesses are the ones who did this to him, i.e., they are responsible for the entire matter of his execution and are therefore liable to be executed.

讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讙谞讘 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讗讻诇

And there is a dispute with regard to a stubborn and rebellious son in a case where two of the final witnesses, who testify after the son was already flogged for engaging in gluttonous and drunken conduct, say: He stole in our presence, and two other witnesses say: He ate in our presence. The dispute is whether the testimony of these two pairs of witnesses is testimony concerning an entire matter or testimony concerning half a matter.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 注讚讬 诪讻讬专讛 讘谞驻砖 砖讛讜讝诪讜 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 注讘讚讬 诪讻专转讬

Rav Asi says: The witnesses to the sale of a person who were rendered conspiring witnesses are not executed, due to the fact that the one against whom they testified could say: Although they testified that I sold an individual, it was my slave that I sold. In that case, the witnesses are not testifying that he violated a capital transgression, as they cannot attest to the fact that the individual he sold was first abducted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚专讘 讗住讬 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讚讘专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讚讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讛讗 诪转讜讱 拽讗诪专

Rav Yosef says: In accordance with whose opinion is that halakha of Rav Asi? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: The testimony of witnesses is valid only when they attest to an entire matter and not to half a matter. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: According to your explanation, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold: The testimony is valid when they testify to an entire matter and even when they testify to half a matter, are the conspiring witnesses executed? Doesn鈥檛 Rav Asi say that they are not executed due to the fact that the one against whom they testified could say: Although they testified that I sold an individual, it was my slave that I sold? According to that reasoning, even the Rabbis would concede that they are not executed.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讜讘讚诇讗 讗转讜 注讬讚讬 讙谞讬讘讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗转讜 诇讘住讜祝

Rather, you may even say that Rav Asi鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is concerning a case where only witnesses to the sale came to testify and witnesses to the abduction did not come to testify. In that case the accused can avoid punishment; therefore, the conspiring witnesses are not executed. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating that halakha? Obviously, in that case they are not executed, as there is no way to determine that the one he sold is not a slave. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that they are not executed even if witnesses to the abduction ultimately came after the witnesses to the sale had testified and testified that he sold a freeman, not his slave.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪专诪讝讬 专诪讜讝讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专诪讬讝讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 专诪讬讝讗 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But still, what is the purpose of stating that halakha? When the witnesses to the sale testified, their testimony was not sufficient to execute the accused. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in a case where they are not executed even where the first and second pairs of witnesses gesture to one another, ostensibly indicating that the conspiring witnesses to the sale were aware that the witnesses to the abduction would follow and that therefore the initial witnesses are part of the conspiracy to testify and execute the accused. And consequently, it is necessary to teach this halakha lest you say: Gesturing is a significant matter, and the legal status of the two testimonies is that of a single testimony. Therefore, Rav Asi teaches us that gesturing is nothing of significance.

诪转谞讬壮 讝拽谉 诪诪专讗 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诪诪讱 讚讘专 诇诪砖驻讟 砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讛讬讜 砖诐 讗讞讚 讬讜砖讘 注诇 驻转讞 讛专 讛讘讬转 讜讗讞讚 讬讜砖讘 注诇 驻转讞 讛注讝专讛 讜讗讞讚 讬讜砖讘 讘诇砖讻转 讛讙讝讬转

MISHNA: A rebellious elder according to the court, who does not observe the ruling of the court, is executed by strangulation, as it is stated: 鈥淚f there shall be a matter too hard for you in judgment鈥nd you shall arise and ascend unto the place that the Lord your God shall choose鈥nd you shall do according to the matter that they shall declare unto you鈥nd the man that shall do so intentionally, not to listen鈥nd that man shall die鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:8鈥12). There were three courts there in Jerusalem. One convenes at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and one convenes at the entrance to the Temple courtyard, and one convenes in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.

讘讗讬谉 诇讝讛 砖注诇 驻转讞 讛专 讛讘讬转 讜讗讜诪专 讻讱 讚专砖转讬 讜讻讱 讚专砖讜 讞讘讬专讬 讻讱 诇讬诪讚转讬 讜讻讱 诇讬诪讚讜 讞讘讬专讬 讗诐 砖诪注讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐

An elder who issues a ruling contrary to the ruling of his colleagues and his colleagues come to that court that is at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and the elder says: This is what I interpreted and that is what my colleagues interpreted; this is what I taught and that is what my colleagues taught. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling in that case, the court says it to them.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诇讗讜转谉 砖注诇 驻转讞 注讝专讛 讜讗讜诪专 讻讱 讚专砖转讬 讜讻讱 讚专砖讜 讞讘讬专讬 讻讱 诇讬诪讚转讬 讜讻讱 诇讬诪讚讜 讞讘讬专讬 讗诐 砖诪注讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐

And if not, they come to those judges who are convened at the entrance to the Temple courtyard, which is a more significant tribunal. And the elder says: This is what I interpreted and that is what my colleagues interpreted; this is what I taught and that is what my colleagues taught. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling in that case, the court says it to them.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘诇砖讻转 讛讙讝讬转 砖诪诪谞讜 讬讜爪讗 转讜专讛 诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 诪谉 讛诪拽讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讗砖专 讬讘讞专 讛壮 讞讝专 诇注讬专讜 砖谞讛 讜诇诪讚 讘讚专讱 砖讛讬讛 诇诪讚 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜专讛 诇注砖讜转 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 讘讝讚讜谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讜专讛 诇注砖讜转

And if not, these judges and those judges come to the High Court, the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges that is in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, from which Torah emerges to the entire Jewish people, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall do according to the matter that they shall declare unto you from that place that the Lord shall choose and you shall observe to perform according to all that they shall teach you鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:10). They are the ultimate arbiters who establish the halakha that is binding. If they ruled contrary to the ruling of the elder and the elder then returned to his city, and nevertheless, he taught in the manner that he was teaching previously, he is exempt from punishment. But if he instructed others to act on the basis of his ruling that stands contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, he is liable to be executed, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the man that shall do so intentionally not to listen鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:12), meaning that one is not liable unless he instructs others to act.

转诇诪讬讚 砖讛讜专讛 诇注砖讜转 驻讟讜专 谞诪爪讗 讞讜诪专讜 拽讜诇讜

A student who is not yet an elder, i.e., he has not been ordained, who instructs others to act contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, is exempt, as a ruling given prior to ordination is not a valid ruling. It follows that his stringency is his leniency. The stringency imposed upon the student that he is not sanctioned to issue rulings results in the leniency that if he instructs others to act on the basis of his ruling that is contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, he is exempt.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诪诪讱 讚讘专壮

GEMARA: The Sages taught with regard to that which is stated: 鈥淚f there shall be a matter too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between mark and mark, even matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise, and ascend to the place that the Lord your God shall choose鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:8). 鈥淚f there shall be a matter too hard [yippaleh] for you鈥;

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 86

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 86

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 壮诪讗讞讬讜壮 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗谞讜 诪专砖讜转 讗讞讬讜 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讞讬讬讘 转谞讬 驻讟讜专

A tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall recited that baraita, where the tanna holds that one is liable for abducting another and selling him to the abductee鈥檚 father, before Rav Sheshet. Rav Sheshet said to him: I teach that Rabbi Shimon says: From the term 鈥渙f his brethren鈥 it is derived that there is no liability unless he removes the abductee from the domain of his brethren, and you say that one who sells the abductee to his father is liable? Emend the baraita and teach instead: He is exempt.

诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: What is the difficulty raised by Rav Sheshet? Perhaps that statement that he cited is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while this baraita is the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住转诐 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住转诐 转讜住驻转讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 住转诐 住驻专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住转诐 住驻专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讜诇讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara responds: That should not enter your mind, as the unattributed baraita that was cited is a passage from the halakhic midrash on the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy entitled Sifrei, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: An unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; an unattributed baraita in the Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya; an unattributed baraita in the Sifra, the halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; and an unattributed baraita in the Sifrei is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And all of these are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as all the Sages mentioned were his disciples. Therefore, it is unlikely that an unattributed baraita from the Sifrei would run counter to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讛讙讜谞讘 讘谞讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the liability of one who abducts his son. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem him exempt?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪爪讜讬

Abaye said: It is derived from the verse that states: 鈥淚f a man shall be found abducting a person of his brethren鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:7), to exclude one who is already found in the custody of the abductor before the abduction. Since the son is already in the custody of his father, the father is not liable for abducting him.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻讬 讬诪爪讗 讗讬砖 砖讻讘 注诐 讗砖讛 讘注诇转 讘注诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讬 讬诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪爪讜讬 讻讙讜谉 砖诇 讘讬转 驻诇讜谞讬 讚砖讻讬讞谉 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讬专讬

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If that is so, then the verse: 鈥淚f a man shall be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:22), may also be interpreted: 鈥淚f a man shall be found,鈥 to exclude one who was already found. So too, would one say that adulterers are exempt from liability if they commit adultery in, for example, the house of so-and-so, where married women are commonly found and they have a preexisting reputation for licentiousness?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪讜谞诪爪讗 讘讬讚讜 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Abaye said to Rav Pappa: The Rabbis鈥 opinion is derived from the phrase: 鈥淥r if he is found in his possession, he shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:16), from which I am saying my inference, that it is derived: If he is found, to the exclusion of one who was already found.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻讱 讛谞讬 诪讬拽专讬 讚专讚拽讬 讜诪转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪爪讜讬讬谉 讘讬讚谉 讚诪讜 讜驻讟讬专讬

Rava said: Therefore, with regard to those teachers of children [dardekei] and those who recite mishnayot to Torah scholars, the status of their students is as though they are found in their possession, and the teachers are exempt from liability for abducting them.

讙谞讘 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 讜讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇注讘讚讬诐 讘讜砖转

搂 The mishna teaches that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to liability if one abducted one who is half-slave half-freeman. We learned in a mishna there (Bava Kamma 87a) that Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no indemnity for the humiliation of a slave, since he is not a full-fledged Jew.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬谞爪讜 讗谞砖讬诐 讬讞讚讜 讗讬砖 讜讗讞讬讜 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讞讜讛 讬爪讗 注讘讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讞讜讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is derived from the verse that states: 鈥淲hen men struggle together, a man and his brother, and the wife of the one drew near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who smites him, and extended her hand, and grabbed his genitals鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:11). This is the source for liability to pay restitution for humiliating another. From the term 鈥渉is brother鈥 it is derived that one who has brotherhood, i.e., who is halakhically related to his biological family, receives payment for humiliation. A slave is excluded, as he has no brotherhood, i.e., he is not halakhically related to his family.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗 讘诪爪讜转

And what is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis? They hold that although the slave has no family ties, he is the brother of the assailant with regard to the fulfillment of mitzvot, as a Canaanite slave is obligated to fulfill the same mitzvot that a woman is obligated to fulfill.

讜讛讻讗 讛讬讻讬 讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: And here, with regard to abduction, how does Rabbi Yehuda interpret the verses and arrive at the conclusion that one is liable for abducting one who is half-slave half-freeman? Shouldn鈥檛 the term 鈥渇rom his brethren鈥 render exempt from liability one who abducts a slave?

住讘专 诪讗讞讬讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注讘讚讬诐 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诪讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the term in the verse: 鈥淔rom his brethren鈥 (Deuteronomy (24:7), serves to exclude from liability one who abducts slaves. Had the verse continued: The children of Israel, that phrase would have been interpreted to exclude from liability one who abducts one who is half-slave half-freeman. Since the verse states: 鈥淔rom the children of Israel,鈥 the prefix letter mem, meaning from, indicates that there are some from the children of Israel for whose abduction one is liable and there are some for whose abduction one is exempt. That prefix also serves to exclude from liability one who abducts one who is half-slave half-freeman. Therefore, this is an example of a restriction following a restriction, and there is a hermeneutical principle that a restriction following a restriction serves only to amplify the halakha and to include in the category of those who are liable one who abducts one who is half-slave half-freeman.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讞讬讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注讘讚讬诐 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讛讜 讚讛讗 讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗 讘诪爪讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讘讚 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉

And the Rabbis, who deem one who abducts one who is half-slave half-freeman exempt, how do they interpret the verse? They do not exclude slaves based on the term 鈥渇rom his brethren,鈥 as the slave is the brother of the abductor with regard to the fulfillment of mitzvot. Concerning the expression 鈥渃hildren of Israel鈥 and the more expanded expression 鈥渇rom the children of Israel,鈥 one serves to exclude from liability one who abducts slaves, as the slave is not a full-fledged Jew, and one serves to exclude from liability one who abducts one who is half-slave half-freeman.

讗讝讛专讛 诇讙讜谞讘 谞驻砖 诪谞讬谉 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗诪专 诪诇讗 转讙谞讘 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪诇讗 讬诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专转 注讘讚 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讗讜 讚讙谞讬讘讛 讜诪专 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讗讜 讚诪讻讬专讛

搂 The Gemara asks: From where is a prohibition against abducting a person derived? Rabbi Yoshiya says that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not steal鈥 (Exodus 20:13). Rabbi Yo岣nan says that it is derived from the verse: 鈥淭hey shall not be sold as slaves鈥 (Leviticus 25:42). The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree, as each requires both verses to derive the prohibition. One Sage, Rabbi Yoshiya, enumerates the prohibition against abduction, and one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, enumerates the prohibition against selling the abductee into slavery.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮诇讗 转讙谞讘壮 讘讙讜谞讘 谞驻砖讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讙讜谞讘 谞驻砖讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讙讜谞讘 诪诪讜谉 讗诪专转 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 诪讚讜转 砖讛转讜专讛 谞讚专砖转 讘讛谉 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 诪注谞讬讬谞讜 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讘谞驻砖讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘谞驻砖讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita: 鈥淵ou shall not steal鈥 (Exodus 20:13), and it is with regard to one who abducts people that the verse is speaking. Do you say that the verse is speaking with regard to one who abducts people, or perhaps the verse is speaking only with regard to one who steals property? You say: Go out and learn from one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles: A matter derived from its context. With regard to what context are the adjacent prohibitions 鈥淵ou shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery鈥 in the verse speaking? They are speaking with regard to capital cases. So too here, the prohibition is speaking with regard to a capital case of abduction.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 壮诇讗 转讙谞讘讜壮 讘讙讜谞讘 诪诪讜谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讙讜谞讘 诪诪讜谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讙讜谞讘 谞驻砖讜转 讗诪专转 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 诪讚讜转 砖讛转讜专讛 谞讚专砖转 讘讛谉 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 诪注谞讬谞讜 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讘诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪诪讜谉

It is taught in another baraita: 鈥淵ou shall not steal鈥 (Leviticus 19:11), and it is with regard to one who steals property that the verse is speaking. Do you say that the verse is speaking with regard to one who steals property, or perhaps the verse is speaking only with regard to one who abducts people? You say: Go out and learn from one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles: A matter derived from its context. With regard to what context is the subsequent verse: 鈥淵ou shall neither exploit your neighbor nor rob him鈥 (Leviticus 19:13), speaking? It is speaking with regard to property. So too here, the verse is speaking with regard to property.

讗讬转诪专 注讬讚讬 讙谞讬讘讛 讜注讬讚讬 诪讻讬专讛 讘谞驻砖 砖讛讜讝诪讜 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讛专讙讬谉

It was stated: If the witnesses to the abduction and the witnesses to the sale of a person were rendered conspiring witnesses, 岣zkiyya says: The typical sentence of conspiring witnesses is not implemented and they are not executed. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They are executed.

讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讚讘专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讚讘专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪讬 讚讘专

The Gemara elaborates: It is 岣zkiyya who said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said one derives from the verse: 鈥淥n the basis of two witnesses鈥hall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15), that the testimony of witnesses is valid only when they attest to an entire matter, but not to half a matter. Since each pair of witnesses provides testimony concerning only half the transgression for which the perpetrator would be liable, i.e., they each testify to only the abduction or the sale, the testimony of each pair is not valid. Therefore, when they are deemed conspiring witnesses, they are not executed. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says his statement in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said that one derives from the verse that the testimony is valid when they testify with regard to an entire matter, and even when they testify with regard to half a matter. Since the testimony of the two pairs of witnesses together constitutes a complete testimony, if they are rendered conspiring witnesses, they are executed.

讜诪讜讚讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 砖诇 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 砖讛讜讝诪讜 砖谞讛专讙讬谉 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇讬诐 诇讜诪专 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐

The Gemara notes: And 岣zkiyya concedes with regard to the final witnesses of a stubborn and rebellious son who were rendered conspiring witnesses that they are executed. A stubborn and rebellious son is executed only if witnesses testified that he engaged in gluttonous and drunken conduct and he was flogged, and then a second pair of witnesses testifies that he again engaged in gluttonous and drunken conduct. His death sentence is based solely on the testimony of the second pair, as the first witnesses could say:

诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讘讗谞讜 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讻讜诇讬 讚讘专 拽讗 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛

It is in order to flog him, not to execute him, that we came to court. And these other witnesses, through their testimony, are the ones who did this to him, i.e., they are responsible for the entire matter of his execution, and are therefore liable to be executed for giving conspiring testimony.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 注讬讚讬 诪讻讬专讛 谞诪讬 诇讬拽讟诇讬讛 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇讬谉 注讬讚讬 讙谞讬讘讛 诇讜诪专 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讘讗谞讜 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚拽住讘专 讞讝拽讬讛 讚诇讗 诇拽讬

Rav Pappa objects to this: If so, and 岣zkiyya concedes to Rabbi Yo岣nan in the case of the final testimony of the stubborn and rebellious son, let them also execute the witnesses to the sale of one who was abducted, as the witnesses to the abduction could say: It is in order to flog the abductor, not to execute him, that we came to court. And if you would say that 岣zkiyya holds that one who abducts another and does not sell him is not flogged, that is difficult.

讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注讬讚讬 讙谞讬讘讛 讘谞驻砖 砖讛讜讝诪讜 讞讝拽讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讜拽讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 转住转讬讬诐 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讬谉 诪讚讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉

But wasn鈥檛 it stated: With regard to witnesses to the abduction who were rendered conspiring witnesses prior to the testimony of the witnesses to the sale, 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree. One says: They are flogged, and one says: They are not flogged. And we say: It may be concluded that it is 岣zkiyya who said that they are flogged, from the fact that 岣zkiyya said: They are not executed.

讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 谞讛专讙讬谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讗讝讛专转 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讗讝讛专转 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 诇拽讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讛讬讻讬 诇拽讜

Since if one were to suggest that it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who said that they are flogged, that cannot be. Since he says that conspiring witnesses are executed in this case, it is a prohibition that is given as a warning of liability for a court-imposed death penalty, and the principle is: With regard to any prohibition that is given as a warning of liability for a court-imposed death penalty, one is not flogged for its violation, even in a case where the transgressor is not executed. The abductor is not flogged. How then could the conspiring witnesses be flogged for testifying against them, as the punishment for conspiring witnesses is identical to the punishment of the one against whom they testified? Rather, it is certain that 岣zkiyya holds that the conspiring witnesses to the abduction are flogged, and therefore everyone agrees that the conspiring witnesses to the sale are executed.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘注讬讚讬 诪讻讬专讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚谞讛专讙讬谉 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘注讬讚讬 讙谞讬讘讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讙谞讬讘讛 诇讞讜讚讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讜诪讻讬专讛 诇讞讜讚讛 拽讬讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讛专讙讬谉 讙谞讬讘讛 讗转讞诇转讗 讚诪讻讬专讛 讛讬讗

Rather, Rav Pappa says: The previous explanation is rejected, and instead the dispute must be explained as follows: With regard to the witnesses to the sale of the abductee, it is clear that everyone agrees that they are executed, as theirs is testimony concerning an entire matter and would have led to his execution. When they disagree, it is with regard to the witnesses to the abduction. 岣zkiyya says: They are not executed, as he holds that abduction stands discrete as an independent prohibition punishable by lashes, and the sale stands discrete as an independent prohibition punishable by strangulation. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They are executed, as the abduction is the beginning of the process that culminates with the sale. The witnesses testifying to the abduction are testifying to a transgression that will culminate with the sale of the abductee.

讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖诇 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 砖讛讜讝诪讜 砖讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讘讗谞讜

The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yo岣nan concedes with regard to the initial witnesses concerning a stubborn and rebellious son who testified that he engaged in gluttonous and drunken conduct and who were rendered conspiring witnesses that they are not executed, as they could say: It is in order to flog him for past conduct, not to execute him for actions that he might perform in the future, that we came to court. Therefore, there is no connection between their testimony and punishment for future actions.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讜讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛

Abaye said in summary: All concede in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son, and all concede in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son, and there is a dispute with regard to a stubborn and rebellious son.

讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讘注讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讘讗谞讜

The Gemara elaborates: With regard to the initial witnesses, all, even Rabbi Yo岣nan, concede in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son that they are not executed if they are rendered conspiring witnesses, as they could say: It is in order to flog him for past conduct, not to execute him, that we came to court.

讜讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讘注讚讬诐 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 砖谞讛专讙讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖注讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讘讗谞讜 讜讛谞讬 讻讜诇讬讛 讚讘专 拽讗 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛

And with regard to the final witnesses, all, even 岣zkiyya, concede in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son that they are executed if they are rendered conspiring witnesses, due to the fact that the initial witnesses could say: It is in order to flog him for past conduct that we came to court, and these final witnesses are the ones who did this to him, i.e., they are responsible for the entire matter of his execution and are therefore liable to be executed.

讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讙谞讘 讜砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讗讻诇

And there is a dispute with regard to a stubborn and rebellious son in a case where two of the final witnesses, who testify after the son was already flogged for engaging in gluttonous and drunken conduct, say: He stole in our presence, and two other witnesses say: He ate in our presence. The dispute is whether the testimony of these two pairs of witnesses is testimony concerning an entire matter or testimony concerning half a matter.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 注讚讬 诪讻讬专讛 讘谞驻砖 砖讛讜讝诪讜 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 诪转讜讱 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 注讘讚讬 诪讻专转讬

Rav Asi says: The witnesses to the sale of a person who were rendered conspiring witnesses are not executed, due to the fact that the one against whom they testified could say: Although they testified that I sold an individual, it was my slave that I sold. In that case, the witnesses are not testifying that he violated a capital transgression, as they cannot attest to the fact that the individual he sold was first abducted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚专讘 讗住讬 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讜诇讗 讞爪讬 讚讘专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讚讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讛讗 诪转讜讱 拽讗诪专

Rav Yosef says: In accordance with whose opinion is that halakha of Rav Asi? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: The testimony of witnesses is valid only when they attest to an entire matter and not to half a matter. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: According to your explanation, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold: The testimony is valid when they testify to an entire matter and even when they testify to half a matter, are the conspiring witnesses executed? Doesn鈥檛 Rav Asi say that they are not executed due to the fact that the one against whom they testified could say: Although they testified that I sold an individual, it was my slave that I sold? According to that reasoning, even the Rabbis would concede that they are not executed.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讜讘讚诇讗 讗转讜 注讬讚讬 讙谞讬讘讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗转讜 诇讘住讜祝

Rather, you may even say that Rav Asi鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is concerning a case where only witnesses to the sale came to testify and witnesses to the abduction did not come to testify. In that case the accused can avoid punishment; therefore, the conspiring witnesses are not executed. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating that halakha? Obviously, in that case they are not executed, as there is no way to determine that the one he sold is not a slave. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that they are not executed even if witnesses to the abduction ultimately came after the witnesses to the sale had testified and testified that he sold a freeman, not his slave.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪专诪讝讬 专诪讜讝讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专诪讬讝讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 专诪讬讝讗 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But still, what is the purpose of stating that halakha? When the witnesses to the sale testified, their testimony was not sufficient to execute the accused. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in a case where they are not executed even where the first and second pairs of witnesses gesture to one another, ostensibly indicating that the conspiring witnesses to the sale were aware that the witnesses to the abduction would follow and that therefore the initial witnesses are part of the conspiracy to testify and execute the accused. And consequently, it is necessary to teach this halakha lest you say: Gesturing is a significant matter, and the legal status of the two testimonies is that of a single testimony. Therefore, Rav Asi teaches us that gesturing is nothing of significance.

诪转谞讬壮 讝拽谉 诪诪专讗 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诪诪讱 讚讘专 诇诪砖驻讟 砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讛讬讜 砖诐 讗讞讚 讬讜砖讘 注诇 驻转讞 讛专 讛讘讬转 讜讗讞讚 讬讜砖讘 注诇 驻转讞 讛注讝专讛 讜讗讞讚 讬讜砖讘 讘诇砖讻转 讛讙讝讬转

MISHNA: A rebellious elder according to the court, who does not observe the ruling of the court, is executed by strangulation, as it is stated: 鈥淚f there shall be a matter too hard for you in judgment鈥nd you shall arise and ascend unto the place that the Lord your God shall choose鈥nd you shall do according to the matter that they shall declare unto you鈥nd the man that shall do so intentionally, not to listen鈥nd that man shall die鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:8鈥12). There were three courts there in Jerusalem. One convenes at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and one convenes at the entrance to the Temple courtyard, and one convenes in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.

讘讗讬谉 诇讝讛 砖注诇 驻转讞 讛专 讛讘讬转 讜讗讜诪专 讻讱 讚专砖转讬 讜讻讱 讚专砖讜 讞讘讬专讬 讻讱 诇讬诪讚转讬 讜讻讱 诇讬诪讚讜 讞讘讬专讬 讗诐 砖诪注讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐

An elder who issues a ruling contrary to the ruling of his colleagues and his colleagues come to that court that is at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and the elder says: This is what I interpreted and that is what my colleagues interpreted; this is what I taught and that is what my colleagues taught. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling in that case, the court says it to them.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诇讗讜转谉 砖注诇 驻转讞 注讝专讛 讜讗讜诪专 讻讱 讚专砖转讬 讜讻讱 讚专砖讜 讞讘讬专讬 讻讱 诇讬诪讚转讬 讜讻讱 诇讬诪讚讜 讞讘讬专讬 讗诐 砖诪注讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐

And if not, they come to those judges who are convened at the entrance to the Temple courtyard, which is a more significant tribunal. And the elder says: This is what I interpreted and that is what my colleagues interpreted; this is what I taught and that is what my colleagues taught. If the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling in that case, the court says it to them.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘诇砖讻转 讛讙讝讬转 砖诪诪谞讜 讬讜爪讗 转讜专讛 诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 诪谉 讛诪拽讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讗砖专 讬讘讞专 讛壮 讞讝专 诇注讬专讜 砖谞讛 讜诇诪讚 讘讚专讱 砖讛讬讛 诇诪讚 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜专讛 诇注砖讜转 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 讘讝讚讜谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讜专讛 诇注砖讜转

And if not, these judges and those judges come to the High Court, the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges that is in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, from which Torah emerges to the entire Jewish people, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall do according to the matter that they shall declare unto you from that place that the Lord shall choose and you shall observe to perform according to all that they shall teach you鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:10). They are the ultimate arbiters who establish the halakha that is binding. If they ruled contrary to the ruling of the elder and the elder then returned to his city, and nevertheless, he taught in the manner that he was teaching previously, he is exempt from punishment. But if he instructed others to act on the basis of his ruling that stands contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, he is liable to be executed, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the man that shall do so intentionally not to listen鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:12), meaning that one is not liable unless he instructs others to act.

转诇诪讬讚 砖讛讜专讛 诇注砖讜转 驻讟讜专 谞诪爪讗 讞讜诪专讜 拽讜诇讜

A student who is not yet an elder, i.e., he has not been ordained, who instructs others to act contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, is exempt, as a ruling given prior to ordination is not a valid ruling. It follows that his stringency is his leniency. The stringency imposed upon the student that he is not sanctioned to issue rulings results in the leniency that if he instructs others to act on the basis of his ruling that is contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, he is exempt.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诪诪讱 讚讘专壮

GEMARA: The Sages taught with regard to that which is stated: 鈥淚f there shall be a matter too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between mark and mark, even matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise, and ascend to the place that the Lord your God shall choose鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:8). 鈥淚f there shall be a matter too hard [yippaleh] for you鈥;

Scroll To Top