Mesorat%20hashas for Sanhedrin 171:20

ומודה חזקיה בעדים האחרונים של בן סורר ומורה שהוזמו שנהרגין מתוך שיכולים לומר הראשונים

R. Johanan said: From They shall not be sold as bondsmen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 42. ');">¹⁹</span> Now, there is no dispute: one Master states the prohibition for stealing [i.e., abduction], the other Master for selling [the kidnapped person]. Our Rabbis taught: Thou shalt not steal. — 20 Scripture refers to the stealing of human beings. You say, Scripture refers to the stealing of human beings; but perhaps it is not so, the theft of property [lit., 'money'] being meant? — I will tell you: Go forth and learn from the thirteen principles whereby the Torah is interpreted. [one of which is that] a law is interpreted by its general context: of what does the text speak? of [crimes involving] capital punishment: hence this too refers [to a crime involving] capital punishment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Decalogue, of which this is part, deals in general with capital offences, e.g., idolatry, the desecration of the Sabbath, murder. Hence this too must be similar, and abduction is the only theft so punished. ');">²¹</span> Another [Baraitha] taught: Ye shall not steal:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 11. ');">²²</span> The Writ refers to theft of property. You say thus, but perhaps it is not so, Scripture referring to the theft of human beings? — I will tell you: Go forth and learn from the thirteen principles whereby the Torah is interpreted,[one of which is that] a law is interpreted by its general context. Of what does the text speak? of money matters;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid, 10-15. ');">²³</span> therefore this too refuse to a money [theft]. It has been stated: If the witnesses of the abduction or those of the sale of human being were proved <i>zomemim</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁴</span> — Hezekiah said: They are not executed; R. Johanan maintained that they are. Now Hezekiah's ruling agrees with the view of R. Akiba, viz., [At the the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall] the matter [be established]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 15. ');">²⁵</span> the whole matter, but not half of the matter;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the two witnesses must testify to the entire matter. If two, however, testify to one part, and two to another, their testimony is invalid. Here also, the abduction is only half an offence, likewise the sale in itself proves nothing, as the vendor might have sold his own slave. Therefore their testimony cannot convict the accused, and consequently they themselves, if proved zomemim, are not executed. ');">²⁶</span> whilst R. Johanan's view agrees with that of the Rabbis, viz., the matter implies even half the matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if two witnesses attested a portion of an act or an offence, and another two witnesses the rest, their evidence is combined and the accused punished. Consequently, if they are proved zomemim, they receive themselves the punishment they sought to impose. ');">²⁷</span> Yet Hezekiah admits in the case of a 'stubborn and rebellious' son, that if the last witnesses were contradicted, they are executed, since the first could say,

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Sanhedrin 171:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.