Sanhedrin 103

האי (ויקרא כא, ט) את אביה היא מחללת מאי דריש ביה

the verse, she profaneth her father?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXI, 9. Since R. Ishmael maintains that an arusah is burnt, but not a nesu'ah, deducing this by analogy, and not admitting the gezerah shawah based upon the phrase 'her father', what do these words teach? ');">¹</span>

מבעי ליה לכדתניא היה רבי מאיר אומר מה ת"ל את אביה היא מחללת שאם היו נוהגין בו קודש נוהגין בו חול כבוד נוהגין בו בזיון אומרין ארור שזו ילד ארור שזו גידל ארור שיצא זו מחלציו

— He employs it in accordance with R. Meir's dictum, as it has been taught: R. Meir used to say: What is meant by the verse, &nbsp; &nbsp; <i>she profaneth her father</i>? If he [the father] was regarded as holy, he is now regarded as profane;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense of not holy. ');">²</span>

אמר רב אשי כמאן קרינן רשיעא בר רשיעא ואפי' לרשיעא בר צדיקא כמאן כהאי תנא:

if he was treated with respect, he is now treated with contempt; and men say, 'Cursed be he who begot her, cursed be he who brought her up, cursed be he from whose loins she sprung. R. Ashi said: in accordance with whose view is a wicked man called 'the son of a wicked man', even if he is actually the son of a righteous man? — It is in accordance with this Tanna's dictum.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the father is cursed and reviled for his offspring's misdemeanours. ');">³</span>

זו מצות הנסקלין: מאי תנא דקתני זו מצות הנסקלין

THAT IS THE MANNER OF STONING.

משום דתנא נגמר הדין מוציאין אותו לסקלו בית הסקילה היה גבוה שתי קומות ואיידי דקא בעי למיתנא מצות הנשרפין תנא נמי זו מצות הנסקלין:

To what does this refer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is Rashi's reading, found also in MS.M.; cur edd.: What does be teach that he states?] ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מצות הנשרפין היו משקעין אותו בזבל עד ארכובותיו ונותנין סודר קשה לתוך הרכה וכורך על צוארו זה מושך אצלו וזה מושך אצלו עד שפותח את פיו ומדליק את הפתילה וזורקה לתוך פיו ויורדת לתוך מעיו וחומרת את בני מעיו

— To the statement [in a preceding Mishnah]: When the verdict [of guilty] was finally announced, he [the accused] was led out to be stoned&nbsp;…<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 42b. ');">⁵</span>

ר' יהודה אומר אף הוא אם מת בידם לא היו מקיימין בו מצות שריפה אלא פותח את פיו בצבת שלא בטובתו ומדליק את הפתילה וזורקה לתוך פיו ויורדת לתוך מעיו וחומרת את בני מעיו

Now, the scaffolding [for stoning] was twice a man's height etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 45a. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבי אלעזר (בן) צדוק מעשה בבת כהן אחת שזינתה והקיפוה חבילי זמורות ושרפוה אמר לו מפני שלא היה בית דין של אותה שעה בקי:

And because the <i>Tanna</i> is about to teach the manner of death by fire, he sums up the foregoing with the words: THAT IS THE MANNER OF STONING etc.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי פתילה אמר רב מתנה פתילה של אבר

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE MANNER IN WHICH <font>BURNING</font> IS EXECUTED IS AS FOLLOWS: HE WHO HAD BEEN THUS CONDEMNED WAS <font>LOWERED INTO DUNG UP TO HIS ARMPITS, THEN A HARD CLOTH WAS PLACED WITHIN A SOFT ONE</font>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The soft one alone could not exert sufficient pressure to open his mouth; whilst a hard one alone would bruise the skin and unnecessarily disfigure him (Rashi). ');">⁷</span>

מנא לן אתיא שריפה שריפה מעדת קרח מה להלן שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים אף כאן שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים

WOUND ROUND HIS NECK, AND THE <font>TWO LOOSE ENDS PULLED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, FORCING HIM TO OPEN HIS MOUTH. A WICK WAS</font> THEN LIT, AND <font>THROWN INTO HIS MOUTH</font>, SO THAT IT DESCENDED INTO HIS BODY AND <font>BURNT HIS BOWELS</font>. R. JUDAH SAID: SHOULD HE HOWEVER HAVE DIED AT THEIR HANDS [BEING STRANGLED BY THE BANDAGE BEFORE THE WICK WAS THROWN INTO HIS MOUTH, OR BEFORE IT COULD ACT], HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY FIRE AS PRESCRIBED. HENCE IT WAS DONE THUS: <font>HIS MOUTH WAS FORCED OPEN WITH PINCERS AGAINST HIS WISH</font>, THE WICK LIT AND THROWN INTO HIS MOUTH, SO THAT IT DESCENDED INTO HIS BODY AND BURNT HIS BOWELS. R. ELEAZAR B. ZADOK SAID: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER COMMITTED ADULTERY, WHEREUPON BUNDLES OF FAGGOTS WERE PLACED ROUND ABOUT HER AND SHE WAS BURNT. THE SAGES REPLIED, THAT WAS BECAUSE THE <i>BETH DIN</i> AT THAT TIME WAS NOT WELL LEARNED IN LAW.

רבי אלעזר אמר אתיא שריפה שריפה מבני אהרן מה להלן שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים אף כאן שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים

<i><b>GEMARA</b></i>. What is meant by a WICK? — R. Mathna said: A lead bar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Lit' in the Mishnah will therefore mean 'melted'. ');">⁸</span>

מאן דיליף מעדת קרח מנא ליה דכתיב (במדבר יז, ג) ואת מחתות החטאים האלה בנפשותם שנשמתן נשרפת וגוף קיים

Whence do we know this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That death by fire was thus carried out, instead of burning the body. ');">⁹</span>

ואידך ההיא שריפה ממש היא ומאי בנפשותם שנתחייבו שריפה על עסקי נפשותם

— It is inferred from the fact that burning is decreed here;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 9. She shall be burnt with fire. ');">¹⁰</span>

כדריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש מאי דכתיב (תהלים לה, טז) בחנפי לעגי מעוג חרק עלי שנימו בשביל חנופה שהחניפו לקרח על עסקי לגימה חרק עליהן שר של גיהנם שניו

and was also the fate of the assembly of Korah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVII, 4. And Eliezer the priest look the brazen censers, wherewith they that were burnt had offered. ');">¹¹</span>

ומאן דיליף מבני אהרן מנא ליה דכתי' (ויקרא י, ב) וימותו לפני ה' כעין מיתה

just as there the reference is to the burning of the soul, the body remaining intact, so here too. R. Eleazar said: It is deduced from the employment of the word 'burning' here and in the case of Aaron's sons;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. X, 6. Let your brethren&nbsp;… bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled. ');">¹²</span>

ואידך ההוא שריפה ממש הואי ומאי דכתיב וימותו דאתחיל בהו מגואי כעין מיתה דתניא אבא יוסי בן דוסתאי אומר שני חוטין של אש יצאו מבית קודש הקדשים ונחלקו לארבע ונכנסו שנים בחוטמו של זה ושנים בחוטמו של זה ושרפום

just as there the burning of the soul is meant, while the body remained intact, so here too.

והכתיב (ויקרא י, ב) ותאכל אותם אותם ולא בגדיהם

Now, he who deduces it from the assembly of Korah, whence does he know [that they were thus burnt]? — Because it is written: [Speak unto Eleazar&nbsp;… that he take up the censers out of the burning&nbsp;… The censers of these sinners against their own souls,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVII, 2f (E. V. XVI, 37f). ');">¹³</span>

ונילף מפרים הנשרפים מה להלן שריפה ממש אף כאן שריפה ממש

implying that their souls were burned, but their bodies were unharmed. And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar. ');">¹⁴</span>

מסתברא מאדם הוה ליה למילף שכן אדם חוטא נשמה פיגול

He maintains that they were literally burnt [i.e., their bodies], and what is the meaning of against their own souls? — That they incurred the punishment of fire because of [the pollution of] their souls; as Resh Lakish [taught]. For R. Simeon b. Lakish said: What is the meaning of the verse, with hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XXXV, 16. ');">¹⁵</span>

אדרבה מפרים הנשרפים הוה ליה למילף שכן מכשיר לדורות

Because they hypocritically [i.e., polluting their own sincerity] flattered Korah in return for the feast he set before them, the Prince of Gehenna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the valley to the south of Jerusalem, known as the valley of the son of Hinnom, children were at one time sacrificed to Moloch (II Kings XXIII, 10; Jer. II, 23; VII, 31f). For this reason the valley was deemed accursed, and Gehenna thus became a synonym for hell. It is assumed to be in charge of a demon prince, who voraciously demands multitudes of victims (Shab. 104a). ');">¹⁶</span>

הנך נפישין

gnashed his teeth against them [for their destruction].

מאן דיליף מעדת קרח מאי טעמא לא יליף מבני אהרן ההוא שריפה ממש הואי ונילף מינה

Now he [R. Eleazar] who infers it from the sons of Aaron, whence does he know [that their bodies were not burnt]? — Because it is written, And they died before the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. X, 12. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא (ויקרא יט, יח) ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה

teaching that it was like normal death [from within]. And the other? — He maintains that they were actually burnt, whilst the verse, And they died before the Lord, shews that the fire commenced from within, as in normal death. For it has been taught: Abba Jose b. Dosethai said: Two streams of fire issued from the Holy of Holies, branching off into four, and two entered into each of their nostrils and burned them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the fire commenced, within and spread without. ');">¹⁸</span>

וכי מאחר דאיכא דרב נחמן גזרה שוה למה לי

But it is written, And the fire devoured them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. This implies limitation: 'them', but not something else; now, if they were entirely burnt, what does this word exclude? ');">¹⁹</span>

אי לאו גזרה שוה הוה אמינא שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים לאו שריפה היא כלל ואי משום ואהבת לרעך כמוך לפיש ליה חבילי זמורות כי היכי דלישרוף לעגל קמ"ל:

— This implies them but not their garments.

וכבר היו משה ואהרן מהלכין בדרך ונדב ואביהוא מהלכין אחריהן וכל ישראל אחריהן אמר לו נדב לאביהוא אימתי ימותו שני זקנים הללו ואני ואתה ננהיג את הדור אמר להן הקב"ה הנראה מי קובר את מי אמר רב פפא היינו דאמרי אינשי נפישי גמלי סבי דטעיני משכי דהוגני

But why should we not learn [the manner of death by fire] from the bullocks that were burnt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As sacrifices, where, of course, the carcasses were burnt. Lev.IV, 12 et passim. ');">²⁰</span>

אמר רבי (אליעזר)

just as there they were actually burnt, so here too? — It is logical to learn this from man, because these have the following points in common: — [i] man, [ii] sin, [iii] soul, and [iv] piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., both refer to (i) man, (ii) punishment for sin, (iii) destruction of the soul, and (iv) in both there is no law of piggul. Piggul, lit., 'abomination,' a sacrifice slaughtered with the unlawful intention of eating it beyond the prescribed limits of time; for the flesh of sacrifices had to be eaten within prescribed times (v. Zeb. V, 2. 53a). But the burnt bullocks differed from man on all these points ');">²¹</span> On the contrary, should we not compare it rather to the burnt bullocks, since they have in common [i] the carrying out of God's command, and [ii] permanency?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they have the following in common: (i) each is performed by man in obedience to God's command, but Aaron's sons and the assembly of Korah were destroyed by God himself; (ii) the law of execution by fire, as that of sacrifices, was of permanent validity, whereas in the other two cases their deaths were unique, the result of miracles confined to particular times. ');">²²</span> — Even so, the others have more in common. Now, he who deduces it from the assembly of Korah, why did he not learn it from Aaron's sons? — Because they were actually burnt [this being his opinion]. Then why not deduce from them [that this shall be the method of burning]? — R. Nahman answered in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: The verse saith, But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 18. ');">²³</span> [which implies:] choose an easy death for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the burning of the body is a most painful death. ');">²⁴</span> Now, since we have R. Nahman's dictum, what need is there of the <i>gezerah shawah</i>? — But for the <i>gezerah shawah</i> — I would think that burning of the soul, the body remaining intact, is not deemed burning at all; whilst as for [the implication of the verse], Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, this can be fulfilled by piling up an abundance of faggots to cause a speedy death. Hence the teaching of the <i>gezerah shawah</i>. Moses and Aaron once walked along, with Nadab and Abihu behind them, and all Israel following in the rear. Then Nadab said to Abihu, 'Oh that these old men might die, so that you and I should be the leaders of our generation.' But the Holy One, blessed be He, said unto them: 'We shall see who will bury whom.' R. Papa said: Thus men say: Many an old camel is laden with the hides of younger ones.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., many an old man surprises the young. ');">²⁵</span> R. Eleazar said: