Commentary for Sanhedrin 155:19

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן את זו דרש רבי נחמיה (שמות כא, יט) אם יקום והתהלך בחוץ

But if witnesses, themselves <i>terefah</i>, were confuted, they are executed. R. Ashi said: Even these are not slain, because those who disprove their evidence are not liable if their own is subsequently confuted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If A and B's testimony is disproved by C and D, who testify that they were with them elsewhere than at the scene of the alleged crime, and then the latter themselves are similarly refuted, the law of Deut. XIX, 16-19 is applicable to C and D, since they had sought to impose punishment upon the first two. But if A and B were terefah, this law would not apply to C and D; consequently, the entire law does not apply, and hence they are not executed. ');">²⁰</span> Raba also said: If an ox, a <i>terefah</i>, killed [a man], it is liable [to be stoned]; but if an ox belonging to a <i>terefah</i> [person] killed, it is exempt. Why so? — Because the Writ saith, The ox shall be stoned, and his owner shall also be put to death;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 29. ');">²¹</span> wherever it is possible to read, 'and his owner shall also be put to death,' we also read, 'the ox shall be stoned;' but where we cannot apply, 'and his owner shall also be put to death,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As here, since the owner, being a terefah, is regarded as already dead. ');">²²</span> we do not read, 'the ox shall be stoned.' R. Ashi said: Even an ox, a <i>terefah</i> is exempt. Why so? — Since the owner in a similar condition would be exempt, the ox too is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this verse puts the two on an equal basis. It should be observed that in practice the owner was never killed, but ransomed, in accordance with Ex. XXI, 30 (v. supra 2a). ');">²³</span> IF HE SET ON A DOG OR A SNAKE AGAINST HIM, etc. R. Aha b. Jacob said: If you will investigate [the grounds of the dispute, you will learn that] in R. Judah's opinion the snake's poison is lodged in its fangs, therefore, one who causes it to bite [by placing its fangs against the victim's flesh] is decapitated, whilst the snake itself is exempt. But in the view of the Sages the snake emits the poison of its own accord; therefore the snake is stoned, whilst he who caused it to bite is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On R. Judah's view, the fangs themselves are poisonous. Consequently, the snake does nothing, the murder being committed by the person. But the Sages maintain that even when its fangs are embedded in the flesh, they are not poisonous, unless it voluntarily emits poison. Consequently the murder is committed by the snake, not the man. The law of Ex. XXI, 30 applies to all animals and reptiles. ');">²⁴</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN SMOTE HIS FELLOW, WHETHER WITH A STONE OR WITH HIS FIST, AND THEY [THE EXPERTS] DECLARED THAT DEATH WOULD ENSUE; BUT THEN ITS EFFECT LESSENED [SO THAT IT WAS THOUGHT THAT HE WOULD LIVE], ONLY TO INCREASE SUBSEQUENTLY, SO THAT HE DIED. — HE IS LIABLE. R. NEHEMIAH SAID THAT HE IS EXEMPT, SINCE THERE IS EVIDENCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there are feet', 'there is a basis, a reason for it'. ');">²⁵</span> [THAT HE DID NOT DIE AS A RESULT OF HIS INJURIES, AS HE HAD ALREADY BEEN ON THE MEND.] <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: R. Nehemiah gave the following exposition: If he rise again, and walk abroad

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 155:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.