Sanhedrin 68
וְהָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מֵרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ גְּמִיר לַהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: כְּשֶׁחָלָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, נִכְנְסוּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲבֵירָיו לְבַקְּרוֹ. הוּא יוֹשֵׁב בְּקִינוֹף שֶׁלּוֹ, וְהֵן יוֹשְׁבִין בִּטְרַקְלִין שֶׁלּוֹ.
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Akiva learn these halakhot from Rabbi Yehoshua? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: When Rabbi Eliezer took ill, Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues came to visit him. He was sitting on his canopied bed [bekinof ], and they were sitting in his parlor [biteraklin]; they did not know if he would be able to receive them, due to his illness.
וְאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת הָיָה, וְנִכְנַס הוּרְקָנוֹס בְּנוֹ לַחְלוֹץ תְּפִלָּיו. גָּעַר בּוֹ וְיָצָא בִּנְזִיפָה. אָמַר לָהֶן לַחֲבֵירָיו: כִּמְדוּמֶּה אֲנִי שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אַבָּא נִטְרְפָה. אָמַר לָהֶן: דַּעְתּוֹ וְדַעַת אִמּוֹ נִטְרְפָה! הֵיאַךְ מַנִּיחִין אִיסּוּר סְקִילָה וְעוֹסְקִין בְּאִיסּוּר שְׁבוּת?
And that day was Shabbat eve, and Rabbi Eliezer’s son Hyrcanus entered to remove his phylacteries, as phylacteries are not worn on Shabbat. His father berated him, and he left reprimanded. Hyrcanus said to his father’s colleagues: It appears to me that father went insane, since he berated me for no reason. Rabbi Eliezer heard this and said to them: He, Hyrcanus, and his mother went insane. How can they neglect Shabbat preparations with regard to prohibitions punishable by stoning, such as lighting the candles and preparing hot food, and engage in preparations concerning prohibitions by rabbinic decree, such as wearing phylacteries on Shabbat?
כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ מְיוּשֶּׁבֶת עָלָיו, נִכְנְסוּ וְיָשְׁבוּ לְפָנָיו מֵרָחוֹק אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.
Since the Sages perceived from this retort that his mind was stable, they entered and sat before him at a distance of four cubits, as he was ostracized (see Bava Metzia 59b). It is forbidden to sit within four cubits of an ostracized person.
אָמַר לָהֶם: לָמָּה בָּאתֶם? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה בָּאנוּ. אָמַר לָהֶם: וְעַד עַכְשָׁיו לָמָּה לֹא בָּאתֶם? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא הָיָה לָנוּ פְּנַאי. אָמַר לָהֶן: תָּמֵיהַּ אֲנִי אִם יָמוּתוּ מִיתַת עַצְמָן. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: שֶׁלִּי מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: שֶׁלְּךָ קָשָׁה מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן.
Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Why have you come? They said to him: We have come to study Torah, as they did not want to say that they came to visit him due to his illness. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: And why have you not come until now? They said to him: We did not have spare time. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: I would be surprised if these Sages die their own death, i.e., a natural death. Rather, they will be tortured to death by the Romans. Rabbi Akiva said to him: How will my death come about? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Your death will be worse than theirs, as you were my primary student and you did not come to study.
נָטַל שְׁתֵּי זְרוֹעוֹתָיו וְהִנִּיחָן עַל לִבּוֹ, אָמַר: אוֹי לָכֶם שְׁתֵּי זְרוֹעוֹתַיי, שֶׁהֵן כִּשְׁתֵּי סִפְרֵי תוֹרָה שֶׁנִּגְלָלִין! הַרְבֵּה תּוֹרָה לָמַדְתִּי, וְהַרְבֵּה תּוֹרָה לִימַּדְתִּי. הַרְבֵּה תּוֹרָה לָמַדְתִּי, וְלֹא חִסַּרְתִּי מֵרַבּוֹתַי אֲפִילּוּ כַּכֶּלֶב הַמְּלַקֵּק מִן הַיָּם. הַרְבֵּה תּוֹרָה לִימַּדְתִּי, וְלֹא חִסְּרוּנִי תַּלְמִידַי אֶלָּא כְּמִכְחוֹל בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת.
Rabbi Eliezer raised his two arms and placed them on his heart, and he said: Woe to you, my two arms, as they are like two Torah scrolls that are now being rolled up, and will never be opened again. I have learned much Torah, and I have taught much Torah. I have learned much Torah, and I have not taken away from my teachers, i.e., I have not received from their wisdom, even like a dog lapping from the sea. I have taught much Torah, and my students have taken away from me, i.e., they have received from my wisdom, only like the tiny amount that a paintbrush removes from a tube of paint.
וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת הֲלָכוֹת בְּבַהֶרֶת עַזָּה, וְלֹא הָיָה אָדָם שׁוֹאֲלֵנִי בָּהֶן דָּבָר מֵעוֹלָם. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת הֲלָכוֹת, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: שְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים הֲלָכוֹת, בִּנְטִיעַת קִשּׁוּאִין, וְלֹא הָיָה אָדָם שׁוֹאֲלֵנִי בָּהֶן דָּבָר מֵעוֹלָם, חוּץ מֵעֲקִיבָא בֶּן יוֹסֵף.
Moreover, I can teach three hundred halakhot with regard to a snow-white leprous mark [bebaheret], but no person has ever asked me anything about them. He could not find a student who could fully understand him in those matters. Moreover, I can teach three hundred halakhot, and some say that Rabbi Eliezer said three thousand halakhot, with regard to the planting of cucumbers by sorcery, but no person has ever asked me anything about them, besides Akiva ben Yosef.
פַּעַם אַחַת אֲנִי וָהוּא מְהַלְּכִין הָיִינוּ בַּדֶּרֶךְ, אָמַר לִי: רַבִּי, לַמְּדֵנִי בִּנְטִיעַת קִשּׁוּאִין. אָמַרְתִּי דָּבָר אֶחָד, נִתְמַלְּאָה כׇּל הַשָּׂדֶה קִשּׁוּאִין. אֲמַר לִי: רַבִּי, לִמַּדְתַּנִי נְטִיעָתָן, לַמְּדֵנִי עֲקִירָתָן. אָמַרְתִּי דָּבָר אֶחָד, נִתְקַבְּצוּ כּוּלָּן לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד.
Rabbi Eliezer described the incident: Once he and I were walking along the way, and he said to me: My teacher, teach me about the planting of cucumbers. I said one statement of sorcery, and the entire field became filled with cucumbers. He said to me: My teacher, you have taught me about planting them; teach me about uprooting them. I said one statement and they all were gathered to one place.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הַכַּדּוּר וְהָאִמּוּם וְהַקָּמֵיעַ וּצְרוֹר הַמַּרְגָּלִיּוֹת וּמִשְׁקוֹלֶת קְטַנָּה, מַהוּ? אָמַר לָהֶן: הֵן טְמֵאִין, וְטַהֲרָתָן בְּמָה שֶׁהֵן.
After these comments, the Sages asked him questions of halakha: What is the halakha, with regard to ritual impurity, of a ball made of leather and stuffed with rags, and likewise a last, the frame on which a shoe is fashioned, which is made of leather and stuffed with rags, and likewise an amulet wrapped in leather, and a pouch for pearls, wrapped in leather, and a small weight, which is wrapped in leather? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: They are susceptible to impurity, and their purification is effected by immersing them in a ritual bath as they are, as there is no need to open them up.
מִנְעָל שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הָאִמּוּם, מַהוּ? אָמַר לָהֶן: הוּא טָהוֹר, וְיָצְאָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ בְּטׇהֳרָה. עָמַד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַל רַגְלָיו וְאָמַר: הוּתַּר הַנֶּדֶר, הוּתַּר הַנֶּדֶר!
They asked him further: What is the halakha with regard to a shoe that is on a last? Is it considered a complete vessel, which needs no further preparation, and is therefore susceptible to impurity? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: It is pure, and with this word, his soul left him in purity. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: The vow is permitted; the vow is permitted; i.e., the ostracism that was placed on Rabbi Eliezer is removed.
לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת פָּגַע בּוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בֵּין קֵסָרִי לְלוֹד. הָיָה מַכֶּה בִּבְשָׂרוֹ עַד שֶׁדָּמוֹ שׁוֹתֵת לָאָרֶץ. פָּתַח עָלָיו בְּשׁוּרָה וְאָמַר: אָבִי אָבִי רֶכֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל וּפָרָשָׁיו. הַרְבֵּה מָעוֹת יֵשׁ לִי וְאֵין לִי שׁוּלְחָנִי לְהַרְצוֹתָן.
Rabbi Akiva was not present at the time of his death. At the conclusion of Shabbat, Rabbi Akiva encountered the funeral procession on his way from Caesarea to Lod. Rabbi Akiva was striking his flesh in terrible anguish and regret until his blood flowed to the earth. He began to eulogize Rabbi Eliezer in the row of those comforting the mourners, and said: “My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen” (II Kings 2:12). I have many coins, but I do not have a money changer to whom to give them, i.e., I have many questions, but after your death I have no one who can answer them.
אַלְמָא, מֵרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר גַּמְרַהּ? גַּמְרַהּ מֵרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְלָא סַבְרַהּ. הֲדַר גַּמְרַהּ מֵרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְאַסְבְּרַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ.
The Gemara returns to the matter at hand: Apparently, Rabbi Akiva learned the halakhot of gathering cucumbers through sorcery from Rabbi Eliezer, not from Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara answers: He learned it from Rabbi Eliezer but he did not understand it. Later he learned it from Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Yehoshua explained it to him.
הֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה – חַיָּיב! לְהִתְלַמֵּד שָׁאנֵי, דְּאָמַר מָר: ״לֹא תִלְמַד לַעֲשׂוֹת״ – לַעֲשׂוֹת אִי אַתָּה לָמֵד, אֲבָל אַתָּה לָמֵד לְהָבִין וּלְהוֹרוֹת.
The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Eliezer have performed that act of sorcery? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that one who performs an act of sorcery is liable? The Gemara answers: Performing sorcery not in order to use it, but in order to teach oneself the halakhot is different, and it is permitted; as the Master says that it is derived from the verse: “You shall not learn to do like the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you…one who uses divination, a soothsayer, an enchanter, or a sorcerer” (Deuteronomy 18:9–10), so that you shall not learn, i.e., it is prohibited for you to learn, in order to do, but you may learn, i.e., it is permitted for you to learn, in order to understand the matter yourself and teach it to others.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת
MISHNA: The Torah describes the punishment given to a son who steals money from his parents to eat a gluttonous meal of meat and wine in the company of lowly men. If his parents bring him to court for this act, he is exhorted to desist and is punished with lashes. If he repeats the same misdeed and is again brought to court by his parents within the same three-month period, he is considered a stubborn and rebellious son [ben sorer umoreh]. He is liable to receive the death penalty, which in this case is execution by stoning. From when does a stubborn and rebellious son become liable to receive the death penalty imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son?
מַתְנִי׳ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, מֵאֵימָתַי נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה?
From when he grows two pubic hairs, which are a sign of puberty and from which time he is considered an adult, until he has grown a beard around. The reference here is to the lower beard surrounding his genitals, and not the upper beard, i.e., his facial hair, but the Sages spoke in euphemistic terms. As it is stated: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son” (Deuteronomy 21:18), which indicates that the penalty for rebelliousness is imposed upon a son, but not upon a daughter; and upon a son, but not upon a fully grown man. A minor under the age of thirteen is exempt from the penalty imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son, because he has not yet reached the age of inclusion in mitzvot.
מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, וְעַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְלֹא הָעֶלְיוֹן, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בִּלְשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן״ – בֵּן וְלֹא בַּת, בֵּן וְלֹא אִישׁ. קָטָן פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לִכְלַל מִצְוֹת.
GEMARA: The Gemara inquires about the source of the halakha taught in the mishna: From where do we derive that a minor is exempt from the punishment imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son? The Gemara comments: This question is puzzling: From where do we derive this halakha? The reason is as is taught in the mishna: Because he has not yet reached the age of inclusion in mitzvot. And furthermore, where do we find that the verse punishes a minor, so that a special verse should be required here in order to exempt him?
גְּמָ׳ קָטָן מְנָלַן דְּפָטוּר? מְנָלַן?! כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא: שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לִכְלַל מִצְוֹת! וְתוּ, הֵיכָא אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּעָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב, דְּהָכָא לִיבְעֵי קְרָא לְמִיפְטְרֵיהּ?
The Gemara clarifies: This is what we are saying: Is this to say that a stubborn and rebellious son is killed for a sin that he already committed? But, as will be explained (71b), he is killed for what he will become in the end. The Torah understands that since the boy has already embarked on an evil path, he will continue to be drawn after his natural tendencies and commit many offenses that are more severe. It is therefore preferable that he should be killed now so that he may die in relative innocence, rather than be put to death in the future bearing much more guilt. And since he is executed for what he will become in the end, one might have thought that even a minor as well can be sentenced to the death penalty as a stubborn and rebellious son. And furthermore, the exclusion: “A son,” but not a man, indicates that a minor is in fact included in the halakha, as he is not yet a man.
אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: אַטּוּ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה עַל חֶטְאוֹ נֶהֱרָג? עַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ נֶהֱרָג! וְכֵיוָן דְּעַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ נֶהֱרָג, אֲפִילּוּ קָטָן נָמֵי? וְעוֹד, ״בֵּן״ וְלֹא אִישׁ – קָטָן מַשְׁמַע!
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A minor is exempt from the punishment imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son, as the verse states: “If a man has a son” (Deuteronomy 21:18), which indicates that the halakha applies to a son who is close to the stage of having the strength of a man, i.e., close to full maturity, but not to a younger boy.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: דְּאָמַר קְרָא, ״וְכִי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן״ – בֵּן הַסָּמוּךְ לִגְבוּרָתוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ.
§ The mishna teaches that a boy can be sentenced as a stubborn and rebellious son only until he has grown a lower beard. Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches a baraita that states: Until the hair surrounds the corona. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said in explanation of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement: The reference in the mishna is to hair surrounding the penis and not to hair surrounding the sac holding the testicles, which grows later.
וְעַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן כּוּ׳. תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף עֲטָרָה. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: הַקָּפַת גִּיד, וְלֹא הַקָּפַת בֵּיצִים.
§ Rav Ḥisda says: In the case of a minor who fathered a child, his son cannot become a stubborn and rebellious son, as it is stated: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son,” which indicates that the halakha applies only if a man has a son, but not if a son, i.e., one who is not yet a man, has a son. The Gemara asks: How can Rav Ḥisda derive his halakha from this verse? Doesn’t he require this verse to teach us that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, namely, that a minor is exempt from the punishment imposed upon a stubborn and rebellious son? The Gemara answers: This verse teaches two halakhot, as, were the intention to teach only the halakha that a minor is exempt, let the verse say: If there be a son to a man. For what reason does the verse introduce a change into the normal word order and state: “If a man has a son”? Conclude from it that the verse serves to teach the ruling of Rav Ḥisda.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: קָטָן שֶׁהוֹלִיד, אֵין בְּנוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן״ – לְאִישׁ בֵּן, וְלֹא לְבֵן בֵּן. הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה בֵּן לְאִישׁ״. מַאי ״כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְכִדְרַב חִסְדָּא.
The Gemara asks: If so, say that the entire verse comes to teach us this, i.e., what Rav Ḥisda said, and that it does not teach that a minor is not included in the halakha of a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara answers: If so, the verse should have stated: If there be the son of a man. What is the meaning of: “If a man has a son”? Conclude two conclusions from it, both that a minor cannot become a stubborn and rebellious son and that if a minor fathered a son, the son cannot become a stubborn and rebellious son.
וְאֵימָא: כּוּלֵּיהּ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? אִם כֵּן, נֵימָא קְרָא ״בֶּן אִישׁ״. מַאי ״לְאִישׁ בֵּן״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
The Gemara comments: And Rav Ḥisda’s statement disagrees with the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba says in connection with one who returns stolen property after having taken a false oath that he did not steal it: A minor cannot father a child, as it is stated: “But if the man has no relative to whom restitution may be made, let the trespass that is recompensed to the Lord be the priest’s” (Numbers 5:8). And is there any man in the Jewish people who does not have a relative? All members of the Jewish people are related, as they all descend from the patriarch Jacob, and therefore every person has a relative who is fit to inherit from him.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: קָטָן אֵינוֹ מוֹלִיד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל״. וְכִי יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גּוֹאֵל?
Rather, the verse is speaking of the robbery of a convert, who is treated like a newborn child and considered to have no ties to his natural parents or relatives. If he did not father any children after his conversion, he is a man with no relatives at all, and therefore if he dies, property that had been stolen from him must be returned to a priest.
אֶלָּא, בְּגֶזֶל הַגֵּר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
