סנהדרין לה

סנהדרין לה

וּכְתִיב: ״וַתִּקַּח רִצְפָּה בַת אַיָּה אֶת הַשַּׂק וַתַּטֵּהוּ לָהּ אֶל הַצּוּר בִּתְחִלַּת קָצִיר״.

And it is written: “And Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, took sackcloth and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water was poured upon them from heaven; and she suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night” (II Samuel 21:10). It is clear from this verse that the bodies of the children of Saul remained exposed outdoors; presumably, they were hung.

וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה קַח אֶת כׇּל רָאשֵׁי הָעָם״. אִם הָעָם חָטְאוּ, רָאשֵׁי הָעָם מָה חָטְאוּ?

The Gemara discusses the incident of the Israelites who worshipped the idol of Peor in the wilderness. And it is written: “And the Lord said unto Moses: Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them unto the Lord facing the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel” (Numbers 25:4). The Gemara asks: If the nation transgressed, in what manner did the chiefs of the people transgress? The verse does not record a transgression of the chiefs, so why were they punished?

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה, חַלֵּק לָהֶם בָּתֵּי דִינִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין דָּנִין שְׁנַיִם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד? וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת, אֲבָל בְּמִיתָה אַחַת דָּנִין!

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The reason for selecting the chiefs of the tribes was not to punish them. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Apportion courts for the chiefs of the tribes, and each court will judge and punish the transgressors of its tribe. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that multiple courts were needed for this? If we say that it is due to the principle that a court does not judge two cases of capital law in one day, and there were many cases to be judged, that cannot be the reason. But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: This principle was taught only with regard to two different types of death imposed by a court, as each case needs sufficient time to be fully investigated on its own merits. But the court does judge multiple cases of one type of death, i.e., one transgression, on the same day.

אֶלָּא, כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּשׁוּב חֲרוֹן אַף מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.

The Gemara explains: Rather, the reason for the appointment of multiple courts was in order that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel. The fierce anger of God would remain until those who engaged in idol worship were punished. Therefore, it was necessary to try them in due haste.

דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם כּוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי?

§ The mishna teaches: In cases of monetary law, the court may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even on that same day, whether to exempt the accused or to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even on that same day to acquit the accused, but must wait until the following day to find him liable. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא, ״מְלֵאֲתִי מִשְׁפָּט צֶדֶק יָלִין בָּהּ וְעַתָּה מְרַצְּחִים״. וְרָבָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״אַשְּׁרוּ חָמוֹץ״ – אַשְּׁרוּ דַּיָּין שֶׁמְּחַמֵּץ אֶת דִּינוֹ.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: The verse states prophetically concerning Jerusalem after the destruction of the First Temple: “She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers” (Isaiah 1:21). The verse associates lodging, or waiting overnight, with justice. And Rava says that these matters are derived from here: “Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve [ashru] the oppressed [ḥamotz]” (Isaiah 1:17). This is interpreted: Praise [ashru] the judge who delays [meḥametz] his verdict before he pronounces it.

וְאִידַּךְ: ״אַשְּׁרוּ חָמוֹץ״, וְלֹא חוֹמֵץ. וְאִידַּךְ, הַאי ״מְלֵאֲתִי מִשְׁפָּט״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?

And the other amora, Rabbi Ḥanina, who did not derive this halakha from this verse, interprets it as meaning: Relieve the robbery victim [ḥamotz], but not the robber [ḥometz], as do the wicked judges. The Gemara asks: And the other amora, Rava, what does he do with this verse: “She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers”?

כִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל תַּעֲנִית שֶׁמְּלִינִין בּוֹ אֶת הַצְּדָקָה – כְּאִילּוּ שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּמִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מְלֵאֲתִי מִשְׁפָּט צֶדֶק וְגוֹ׳״. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי – בְּרִיפְתָּא וְתַמְרֵי, אֲבָל בְּזוּזֵי, חִיטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי – לֵית לַן בַּהּ.

The Gemara answers: Rava interprets it in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says, as Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Every fast day on which the distribution of charity [tzedaka] is left overnight, this is considered as if one spilled the blood of the poor people, as they fasted all day in the expectation that they would receive charity before the day was over in order to purchase food with which to break their fasts. As it is stated: “She that was full of justice [tzedek], righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.” The Gemara clarifies: And this statement applies with regard to the delaying of the distribution of bread and dates, which are ready to be consumed; but with regard to the delaying of the distribution of money, wheat, and barley, we have no problem with it.

לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא?

§ After teaching that in cases of capital law, the verdict may not be issued on the same day as the deliberations, the mishna states: Therefore, the court does not judge cases of capital law on certain days, neither on the eve of Shabbat nor on the eve of a Festival. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? What does the halakha that the verdict may not be issued on the same day as the deliberations have to do with not judging cases on those days?

מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר. הֵיכִי לֶיעְבַּד? לִידַיְּינֵיהּ בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא וְלִיגְמְרֵיהּ לְדִינֵיהּ בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא? דִּילְמָא חָזוּ טַעַם לְחוֹבָה, וּבָעוּ לְמִיעְבַּד הֲלָנַת דִּין. לְדַיְּינֵיהּ בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא וְלִיגְמְרֵיהּ בְּשַׁבְּתָא, וְלִיקְטְלֵיהּ בְּשַׁבְּתָא? אֵין רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אֶת שַׁבָּת. וְלִיקְטְלֵיהּ לְאוּרְתָּא? נֶגֶד הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בָּעֵינַן.

The Gemara explains: It is because it is not possible to conduct the trial on the eve of Shabbat or the eve of a Festival. As, how should we act? If we say that we should judge him on Shabbat eve and conclude his verdict on Shabbat eve, perhaps we would see a reason to find the accused liable, and in this situation the court is required to perform a suspension of the trial until the following day, as the court may not issue a verdict in cases of capital law on the same day as the deliberations. If we say: We should judge him on Shabbat eve and conclude the verdict on Shabbat, and, if he is found liable, kill him on Shabbat, that cannot be done, as the murder of one liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment does not override Shabbat. And if we say: We should kill him at night, after the conclusion of Shabbat, that cannot be done, as we require that the capital punishment be administered facing the sun, during the daytime.

וְלִיגְמְרֵיהּ לְדִינֵיהּ בְּשַׁבְּתָא, וְלִיקְטְלֵיהּ בְּחַד בְּשַׁבְּתָא? נִמְצָא אַתָּה מְעַנֶּה אֶת דִּינוֹ. נִידַיְּינֵיהּ בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא וְנִגְמְרֵיהּ בְּחַד בְּשַׁבְּתָא? מִינְּשׁוּ טַעְמַיְיהוּ. אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּינִין עוֹמְדִים לִפְנֵיהֶם, וְכוֹתְבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּיבִין, נְהִי דִּבְפוּמָּא כָּתְבִין, לִיבָּא דְּאִינְּשִׁי אִינְּשִׁי. הִלְכָּךְ לָא אֶפְשָׁר.

And if we say: We should judge him on Shabbat eve, conclude his verdict on Shabbat, and kill him on Sunday, you are found to have caused a delay in his verdict, as the accused will have to wait overnight knowing he is condemned to death. And if we say: We should judge him on Shabbat eve and conclude his verdict on Sunday, the judges will forget their reasons for their positions in the interim. And even though two judges’ scribes are standing before them, and they write the statements of those who acquit the accused and the statements of those who find him liable, and they write that which emerged from the mouths of the judges, i.e., their tentative verdict, the hearts of people [enashei] are forgetful [inshei], and they will forget the reasons. Therefore, it is not possible to begin deliberations in cases of capital law on a Shabbat eve or a Festival eve.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּתְהֵא קְבוּרַת מֵת מִצְוָה דּוֹחָה שַׁבָּת מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁדּוֹחָה שַׁבָּת – קְבוּרַת מֵת מִצְוָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ, מִ״וּלְאַחֹתוֹ״.

§ The Gemara discusses a related matter: Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: And the burial of a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] should override Shabbat by means of an a fortiori inference: If with regard to the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, yet the burial of a met mitzva overrides it, based on the interpretation of the term written with regard to a nazirite: “Or for his sister” (Numbers 6:7); the Gemara pauses its recounting of the question of Reish Lakish and cites a baraita that teaches this halakha.

כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לְאָחִיו וּלְאַחֹתוֹ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ לִשְׁחוֹט אֶת פִּסְחוֹ וְלָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ

As it is taught in a baraita: The verses state with regard to a nazirite: “All the days that he consecrates himself unto the Lord he shall not come near to a dead body. He shall not make himself impure for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die” (Numbers 6:6–7). Why must the verse state all of these relatives? It teaches that if a nazirite was going to slaughter his Paschal offering or to circumcise his son

וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת, יָכוֹל יִטַּמֵּא? אָמַרְתָּ: ״לֹא יִטַּמֵּא״.

and he heard that a relative of his died, one might have thought that he should return and become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse to bury his relative. You said: “He shall not make himself impure”; the death of his relative will not override so significant a mitzva from the Torah.

יָכוֹל, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לַאֲחוֹתוֹ כָּךְ אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּלְאַחֹתוֹ״. לַאֲחוֹתוֹ הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

One might have thought: Just as he may not become impure to bury his sister, so he may not become impure to bury a met mitzva. Therefore, the verse states specifically: “Or for his sister”; teaching that he may not become impure only to bury his sister, as others can attend to her burial, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva.

שַׁבָּת שֶׁנִּידְחֵת מִפְּנֵי עֲבוֹדָה, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא קְבוּרַת מֵת מִצְוָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ?

Having cited the baraita proving that the burial of a met mitzva overrides the Temple service, Reish Lakish continues his suggestion: With regard to Shabbat, which is overridden due to the Temple service, is it not logical that the burial of a met mitzva overrides it?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רְצִיחָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁדּוֹחָה אֶת הָעֲבוֹדָה וְאֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The halakha of murder, i.e., the obligation to kill one found liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, proves that this is not the case, as it overrides the Temple service, e.g., if the only priest present is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, he is taken to be killed despite this resulting in the negation of the Temple service, but it does not override Shabbat.

רְצִיחָה גּוּפָהּ תִּדְחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: מָה עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת״; שַׁבָּת שֶׁנִּידְחֵת מִפְּנֵי עֲבוֹדָה, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ?

The Gemara asks: Murder itself should override Shabbat based on this a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, nevertheless murder overrides it, and the source for this is as it is stated: “And if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; you shall take him from My altar, that he may die” (Exodus 21:14); then with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden due to the Temple service, is it not logical that murder should override it?

אָמַר רָבָא: כְּבָר פַּסְקַהּ תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?

Rava said in response: It has already been ruled by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: What is the meaning when the verse states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day” (Exodus 35:3)? All labor is forbidden on Shabbat, based on the verse: “In it you shall not do any manner of work” (Exodus 20:10). Why is kindling fire singled out?

מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? אִי לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – לְלָאו יָצָאת, אִי לְרַבִּי נָתָן – לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת. כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת.

The Gemara interjects: What is the meaning when the verse states this? If this question is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, this transgression was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat violates an ordinary prohibition, as opposed to the performance of other types of labor on Shabbat, for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. If this question is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, this transgression was singled out to divide the various labors and to establish liability to receive court-imposed capital punishment for performance of any one of them. The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita: Kindling of fire was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat violates an ordinary prohibition, this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Natan says: It was singled out to divide the various labors. Either way, it is clear what the meaning of the verse is.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: תְּנָא ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ. ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? מִכְּדֵי שַׁבָּת חוֹבַת הַגּוּף הִיא, וְחוֹבַת הַגּוּף נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ. ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara clarifies: Rather, Rava said: The term “habitations” in the verse poses a difficulty for the tanna: What is the meaning when the verse states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day”? After all, Shabbat is an obligation on the person himself, not an obligation bound to any specific location. And the halakha is that an obligation on the person himself is practiced whether in Eretz Yisrael or outside of Eretz Yisrael. Why do I need the term “habitations” that the Merciful One writes in the Torah?

מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר תַּלְמִיד אֶחָד: לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כִּי יִהְיֶה בְאִישׁ חֵטְא מִשְׁפַּט מָוֶת וְהוּמָת״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי בֵּין בַּחוֹל בֵּין בַּשַּׁבָּת. וְהָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״מְחַלְּלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת״? בִּשְׁאָר מְלָאכוֹת, חוּץ מִמִּיתַת בֵּית דִּין. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין? וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְהוּמָת״? בְּחוֹל אֲבָל לֹא בְּשַׁבָּת. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ בַּשַּׁבָּת?

Rava continues: One student said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that since it is stated: “And if there is in a man a sin deserving of death and he is put to death” (Deuteronomy 21:22), I would derive that the court administers capital punishment both during the week and on Shabbat. And accordingly, how do I realize the meaning of what the verse states concerning Shabbat: “Everyone that desecrates it shall be put to death” (Exodus 31:14)? One possibility is that the term: Desecration of Shabbat, applies only to other cases in which labor is performed, and excludes instances of the death penalty administered by a court, which is not a desecration of Shabbat. Or rather, derive that even the death penalty administered by a court is prohibited as desecration of Shabbat. And how do I realize the meaning of: “And he is put to death”? One possibility is that the mitzva of executing transgressors applies on weekdays, but not on Shabbat. Or rather, the other possibility is that it applies even on Shabbat.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ בְּכֹל מֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהָיוּ אֵלֶּה לָכֶם לְחֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״. מָה ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן – בֵּית דִּין, אַף ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ הָאָמוּר כָּאן – בֵּית דִּין. וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ בְּכֹל מֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״.

As these verses can be interpreted in either manner, the verse states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day,” and there, with regard to the punishment administered to a murderer, the verse states: “And these shall be for you a statute of judgment throughout your generations in all your habitations” (Numbers 35:29). Just as the term “habitations” that is stated there is referring to the act of a court, so too the term “habitations” that is stated here concerning Shabbat is referring to the act of a court. And the Merciful One states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations.” This teaches that the court does not administer capital punishment on Shabbat.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ אֵין רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אֵין רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הָעֲבוֹדָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. וּמָה שַׁבָּת שֶׁנִּידְחֵית מִפְּנֵי הָעֲבוֹדָה – אֵין רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ, עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ?

Abaye says: Now that you have said that murder of one condemned by the court does not override Shabbat, one should say that murder does not override the performance of the Temple service either, based on an a fortiori inference: And just as with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden for the performance of the Temple service, murder does not override it, then with regard to performance of the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that murder should not override it?

אֶלָּא, הָא דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת״? הָהוּא לְקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, דְּלָא דָּחֵי שַׁבָּת.

The Gemara questions this inference: But if so, how would one explain that which is written in the verse concerning one liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment: “You shall take him from My altar, that he may die” (Exodus 21:14)? This verse indicates that the court administering capital punishment does override the performance of the Temple service. The Gemara explains: That verse serves to teach the halakha concerning an offering of an individual, which does not override Shabbat. The verse is teaching that the court takes the priest to execute him even if this will result in the offering of an individual not being sacrificed.

אָמַר רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, לָא תְּהֵא רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר:

Rava says: If that is so, one should say that murder should not override even an offering of an individual based on an a fortiori inference: