סנהדרין פ

סנהדרין פ

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֲפִילּוּ אַבָּא חֲלַפְתָּא בֵּינֵיהֶן?

If so, according to Shmuel or Reish Lakish, is that compatible with that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the mishna, that Rabbi Yosei says: This is the halakha even if Abba Ḥalafta, i.e., Rabbi Yosei’s father, who himself was a righteous Sage, was among them? This is difficult according to Shmuel, as Rabbi Yosei would certainly not include his father in a group of murderers, and according to Reish Lakish, what is the connection between Rabbi Yosei’s father and a group of oxen?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר, שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹמְדִין, וְיָצָא חֵץ מִבֵּינֵיהֶם וְהָרַג – שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֲפִילּוּ אַבָּא חֲלַפְתָּא בֵּינֵיהֶן.

Rather, Rava says: This is what the mishna is saying: In a case where two people were standing together and an arrow emerged from their midst and killed a person, since it is not known which of them shot the arrow, both of them are exempt. And Rabbi Yosei says: This is the halakha even if Abba Ḥalafta was among them. Even if one of the two people from among whom the arrow emerged was a righteous individual like Abba Ḥalafta, who presumably is not a murderer, since there is no conclusive testimony identifying the shooter, uncertainty remains and both are exempt.

וְשׁוֹר שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ, שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בִּשְׁוָורִין אֲחֵרִים מְעַלְּיֵי – סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתָן לַכִּיפָּה.

The tanna then proceeds to discuss a different matter. And an ox whose verdict was finalized, that was sentenced to execution by stoning, and that was intermingled with other ordinary oxen, i.e., oxen that did not gore, the court stones all of them. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are placed in a vaulted chamber.

וְהָתַנְיָא: פָּרָה שֶׁהֵמִיתָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינָה יָלְדָה – וְולָדָהּ מוּתָּר, אִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינָה יָלְדָה – וְולָדָהּ אָסוּר. נִתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים וַאֲחֵרִים בַּאֲחֵרִים – כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתָן לַכִּיפָּה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מְבִיאִין אוֹתָן לְבֵית דִּין וְסוֹקְלִין אוֹתָן.

The Gemara notes: And it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a cow that killed a person, and thereafter calved, if it was before its verdict was finalized that the cow calved, its offspring is permitted. If it was after its verdict was finalized that the cow calved, its offspring is prohibited, as it was prohibited together with the cow. If the cow was intermingled with other cows and the identity of the cow that killed cannot be determined, and those other cows were intermingled with yet others, the court gathers them into a vaulted chamber. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One brings them to court and the court stones them. The unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna.

אָמַר מָר: אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינָה יָלְדָה, וְולָדָהּ מוּתָּר. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי נְגַחָה הֲוָת מְיעַבְּרָה? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: וְלַד הַנּוֹגַחַת אָסוּר – הִיא וּוְלָדָהּ נָגְחוּ; וְלַד הַנִּרְבַּעַת אָסוּר – הִיא וּוְלָדָהּ נִרְבְּעוּ!

The Master says in the baraita: If the cow calved before its verdict was finalized, its offspring is permitted. The Gemara asks: And is that the ruling even though when it gored it was already pregnant? But doesn’t Rava say with regard to the offspring of a cow that gores while pregnant: It is prohibited to bring it as an offering, like any animal that killed a person, as the cow and its unborn offspring gored together. And similarly, with regard to the offspring of a cow that was the object of bestiality while the offspring was in utero: It is prohibited to bring it as an offering, as the cow and its unborn offspring were the object of bestiality together. The baraita poses a difficulty according to Rava.

אֵימָא: אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינָה עִיבְּרָה וְיָלְדָה – וְולָדָהּ מוּתָּר; אִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינָה עִיבְּרָה וְיָלְדָה – וְולָדָהּ אָסוּר.

The Gemara answers: Emend the baraita and say that the reference is not to a case where a cow that was pregnant gored; rather, the reference is to a case where a cow was impregnated after it gored, and this is the distinction: If before its verdict was finalized the cow was impregnated and calved, its offspring is permitted; if after its verdict was finalized the cow was impregnated and calved, its offspring is forbidden together with it.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם – אָסוּר.

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who says that in a case where this permitted factor and that forbidden factor cause an outcome to be produced, that outcome is forbidden. The offspring that was produced from a bull from which deriving benefit is permitted and a cow from which deriving benefit is forbidden is therefore forbidden as well.

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם – מוּתָּר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

But according to the one who says that in a case where this permitted factor and that forbidden factor cause an outcome to be produced, that outcome is permitted, what can be said? Since deriving benefit from the bull that sired the offspring is permitted, deriving benefit from the offspring should be permitted as well.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא: אֵימָא, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינָה עִיבְּרָה וְיָלְדָה – וְלָדָהּ מוּתָּר, וְאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינָה עִיבְּרָה וּמִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינָה יָלְדָה – וְלָדָהּ אָסוּר. עוּבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא.

Rather, Ravina says: Emend the baraita and say that the distinction in the baraita is: If before its verdict was finalized, the cow was impregnated and calved, its offspring is permitted. If before its verdict was finalized, the cow was impregnated and after its verdict was finalized it calved, its offspring is forbidden because the legal status of the fetus is not that of an independent entity; rather, its status is like that of its mother’s thigh, i.e., a part of its body. Therefore, when the mother is sentenced to death, the offspring is also forbidden once it is born.

כׇּל חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מוּתְרֶה לְדָבָר חָמוּר – הָוֵי מוּתְרֶה לְדָבָר קַל.

§ The mishna teaches: All those liable to be executed with different court-imposed death penalties who became intermingled are sentenced to the most lenient form of execution. The Gemara notes: Conclude from the mishna that an individual who is forewarned for a severe matter is forewarned for a lesser matter. If one is forewarned that if he violates a certain prohibition then he is liable to be stoned, while in fact, he is liable to be executed with a less severe form of execution, the forewarning is effective and he is executed with the less severe form of execution. That is the reason for the halakha in the mishna that even those liable to be executed with a more severe form of execution are executed with the less severe form of execution.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ סְתָם. וְהַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: וּשְׁאָר חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹרָה אֵין מְמִיתִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא בְּעֵדָה וְעֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה, וְעַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוּהוּ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוּהוּ בְּאֵיזֶה מִיתָה הוּא נֶהֱרָג.

Rabbi Yirmeya rejects that proof and says: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the witnesses forewarned the individual that if he violates the prohibition he is liable to be executed, without specification of the mode of execution. And this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all the others, those who are liable for the various death penalties stated in the Torah other than the inciter to idol worship, the court executes them only when the following elements are present: The congregation, represented by the court, and witnesses, and forewarning just before the defendant commits the transgression. And the court does not execute him unless the witnesses informed the defendant that he is liable to receive the death penalty from the court. Rabbi Yehuda says: The defendant is not executed unless the witnesses informed the defendant by which form of death penalty he is to be executed.

תַּנָּא קַמָּא יָלֵיף מִמְּקוֹשֵׁשׁ, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְקוֹשֵׁשׁ הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה.

Based on the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it may be inferred that according to the first tanna, although they must inform him that he is liable to be executed, they are not required to inform him of the specific mode of execution. The Gemara explains the basis for the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda: The first tanna derived forewarning from the incident of the wood gatherer (see Numbers 15:32–36), who was executed even though even Moses did not know with which death penalty he was to be executed. Clearly, the mode of execution could not have been included in his forewarning. Rabbi Yehuda says: The execution of the wood gatherer was a provisional edict based on the word of God. The halakha throughout the generations cannot be derived from it.

הַנִּסְקָלִין בַּנִּשְׂרָפִין, מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַב יְחֶזְקֵאל לְרָמֵי בְּרֵיהּ: הַנִּשְׂרָפִין בַּנִּסְקָלִין, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יִדּוֹנוּ בִּסְקִילָה, שֶׁהַשְּׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

§ The mishna teaches: In a case where those who are liable to be stoned were intermingled with those who are liable to be burned, Rabbi Shimon says: They are all sentenced to be executed by stoning, and the Rabbis say: They are all sentenced to be executed by burning. Rav Yeḥezkel taught a different version to Rami, his son: In a case where those who are liable to be burned were intermingled with those who are liable to be stoned, Rabbi Shimon says: They shall all be sentenced to execution by stoning, as burning is a more severe form of execution.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה: אַבָּא, לָא תַּיתְנְיֵיהּ הָכִי. מַאי אִירְיָא דִּשְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּרוּבָּה נִסְקָלִין נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא: הֵיכִי אַתְנְיֵיהּ?

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Yeḥezkel, said to him: Father, do not teach it in that manner, as it is difficult to understand: Why does Rabbi Shimon teach that the reason is specifically that burning is a more severe form of execution than stoning? Derive this halakha, that they are stoned, for a different reason: The principle with regard to a mixture is to follow the majority, and in this case the majority of the intermingled group is liable to be stoned. Rav Yeḥezkel asked Rav Yehuda: Rather, how then shall I teach it?

הַנִּסְקָלִין בַּנִּשְׂרָפִין, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יִדּוֹנוּ בִּסְקִילָה, שֶׁהַשְּׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה. אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִדּוֹנוּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, שֶׁהַסְּקִילָה חֲמוּרָה. תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּרוּבָּה נִשְׂרָפִין נִינְהוּ!

Rav Yehuda said: You should teach: In a case where those who are liable to be stoned were intermingled with those who are liable to be burned, where the majority is liable to be burned, Rabbi Shimon says: They shall all be sentenced to execution by stoning, as burning is a more severe form of execution. Rav Yeḥezkel, his father, asked: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: And the Rabbis say: They shall all be sentenced to execution by burning, as stoning is a more severe form of execution. If so, derive this halakha, that they are burned because in this case the majority of the intermingled group is liable to be burned, not because stoning is a more severe form of execution.

הָתָם, רַבָּנַן הוּא דְּקָאָמְרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה, לָא! סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

Rav Yehuda answered: There, in the latter clause, it is the Rabbis who say to Rabbi Shimon: According to you, who say that burning is a more severe form of execution than stoning, the fact that the majority is liable to be burned does not warrant the execution of the entire group by burning, since the minority was sentenced to stoning, which is more lenient in your opinion. That is not so, as stoning is a more severe form of execution. And that reason is extraneous, as in this case, they are burned because the majority of the group is liable to be burned.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁינָּנָא,

When this narrative was heard, Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Long-toothed one: