Sanhedrin 142

דכוליה קרא יתירא הוא:

since the entire verse is superfluous.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Bible could have written, 'And ye shall bring him out unto the gate of that city, and stone him.' Hence, the rest must have been inserted as limiting clauses. But if a verse is not superfluous in itself, it may be that it need not be literally interpreted. ');">¹</span>

ומתרין בפני שלשה: למה לי בתרי סגיא אמר אביי הכי קאמר מתרין בו בפני שנים ומלקין אותו בפני שלשה

HE IS ADMONISHED IN THE PRESENCE OF THREE.

מלקות בבן סורר ומורה היכא כתיבא כדר' אבהו דאמר ר' אבהו למדנו (דברים כב, יח) ויסרו (דברים כא, יח) מויסרו ויסרו (דברים כא, יח) מבן ובן (דברים כה, ב) מבן והיה אם בן הכות הרשע:

Why so? Are not two sufficient? — Abaye answered: The Mishnah means this: He is admonished in the presence of two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that they may be witnesses thereof since he cannot be executed on his parents' testimony alone. ');">²</span>

חזר וקלקל נידון בכ"ג [וכו']: האי מבעי ליה זה ולא סומין אם כן לכתוב בננו הוא מאי בננו זה שמע מינה תרתי:

and ordered lashes by a court of three.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As all who are sentenced to lashes; v. supra 2a. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ברח עד שלא נגמר דינו ואחר כך הקיף זקן התחתון פטור ואם משנגמר דינו ברח ואחר כך הקיף זקן התחתון חייב:

Where are lashes stated for a stubborn and rebellious son? — As in R. Abbahu's exegesis. For R. Abbahu said: we draw an analogy between and they shall chastise him, written twice;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Abbahu said this in reference to the slanderer of a woman's honour: whence do we know that he is punished by lashes? Because the Bible writes, And they (the elders) shall chastise him. Deut. XXII, 18. By analogy with And they shall chastise him, said with reference to a rebellious son (ibid. XXI, 18), we learn that the same treatment is meted out to both. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר ר' חנינא בן נח שבירך את השם ואחר כך נתגייר פטור הואיל ונשתנה דינו (נשתנה) מיתתו

and [the meaning of] and they shall chastise him is deduced from [the fact that] ben<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'son'. ');">⁵</span>

נימא מסייעא ליה ברח עד שלא נגמר דינו ואח"כ הקיף זקן התחתון פטור מאי טעמא לאו משום דאמרינן הואיל ואישתני אישתני

[occurs in this passage], and then a further analogy is drawn between the word ben written here and in And it shall be if the wicked man be worthy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' i c Heb. bin — the letters do not differ from ben, the meaning is the same. ');">⁶</span>

לא שאני הכא דאי עבד השתא לאו בר קטלא הוא

to be beaten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 2. There, flagellation is explicitly prescribed. By analogy, the same applies to a rebellious son, and by a further analogy, to the slanderer. ');">⁷</span>

ת"ש אם משנגמר דינו ברח ואחר כך הקיף זקן התחתון חייב נגמר דינו קאמרת נגמר דינו גברא קטילא הוא

IF HE TRANSGRESSES AGAIN AFTER THIS, HE IS TRIED BY A COURT OF TWENTY THREE etc.

תא שמע בן נח שהכה את חבירו ובא על אשת חבירו ונתגייר פטור עשה כן בישראל ונתגייר חייב ואמאי נימא הואיל ואישתני אישתני

But is not this verse [sc. This our son] needed to teach, 'This', excluding blind parents?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah. ');">⁸</span>

דינו ומיתתו בעינן והאי דינו אישתני מיתתו לא אישתני

— if so, the Bible should have written, 'He is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That would imply, 'he who was lashed in your presence.' ');">⁹</span>

בשלמא רוצח מעיקרא סייף והשתא סייף אלא אשת איש מעיקרא סייף והשתא חנק

our son'. Why state, This our son?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies that they actually point to him (Rashi). [Yad Ramah reverses the interpretation]. ');">¹⁰</span>

בנערה המאורסה דאידי ואידי בסקילה

[Hence] deduce there from both.

והא עשה כן בישראל דומיא דאשת חבירו קתני

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF HE [THE REBELLIOUS SON] FLED BEFORE HIS TRIAL WAS COMPLETED, AND THEN HIS NETHER HAIR GREW ROUND,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he is beyond the age limit; v. supra 68b. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא קלה בחמורה מישך שייכא

HE IS FREE. BUT IF HE FLED AFTER HIS TRIAL WAS COMPLETED, AND THEN HIS NETHER HAIR GREW ROUND, HE REMAINS LIABLE.

הניחא לרבנן דאמרי סייף חמור אלא לרבי שמעון דאמר חנק חמור מאי איכא למימר

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Hanina said: A Noachide who blasphemed the Divine Name and then became a proselyte, escapes punishment, since the judicial procedure and death are [thereby] changed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Noachide is tried by one judge, and on the testimony of one witness only, and is executed even if no formal admonition preceded his offence; a Jew is tried by a court of twenty three, on the testimony of at least two, and only after formal admonition. Moreover, a gentile is decapitated, whereas a Jew is stoned. ');">¹²</span>

רבי שמעון סבר לה כתנא דבי מנשה דאמר כל מיתה האמורה לבני נח אינה אלא חנק

Shall we say that [the Mishnah] supports him? IF HE FLED BEFORE HIS TRIAL WAS COMPLETED AND THEN HIS NETHER HAIR GREW ROUND, HE IS FREE. Why so? Surely because since he has changed [in age] he has [also] changed [in liability]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, the same principle holds good here. ');">¹³</span>

בשלמא אשת איש מעיקרא חנק והשתא חנק אלא רוצח מעיקרא חנק והשתא סייף קלה בחמורה מישך שייכא

— No, here [in the Mishnah] it is different, for should he transgress now, he is not liable at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But in the case under discussion, blasphemy after conversion is also punishable, though the procedure differs. ');">¹⁴</span>

לימא מסייעא ליה סרחה ואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק בסקילה מ"ט לא לאו משום דהואיל ואישתני אישתני וכ"ש הכא דאישתני לגמרי האמר ליה רבי יוחנן לתנא תני תידון בסקילה:

Come and hear: BUT IF HE FLED AFTER HIS TRIAL WAS COMPLETED, AND THEN HIS NETHER HAIR GREW ROUND, HE REMAINS LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of his changed status. This refutes R. Hanina's dictum. ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בן סורר ומורה נידון על שם סופו ימות זכאי ואל ימות חייב שמיתתן של רשעים הנאה להן והנאה לעולם לצדיקים רע להן ורע לעולם

— You speak of one who is actually sentenced! But once sentenced, he is [already] as dead.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore his altered status does not free him. ');">¹⁶</span>

יין ושינה לרשעים הנאה להן והנאה לעולם ולצדיקים רע להן ורע לעולם

Come and hear: <font>A Noachide who slew his neighbour [likewise a &nbsp; &nbsp; gentile] or violated his wife, and then became converted, is exempt. But if he did this to an Israelite, he is punished</font>. But why so? Should we not say: Since he is changed [in respect of judicial procedure] he is changed [in respect of liability too]? — The change must be in respect of both the judicial procedure and the death penalty: but this Noachide's status has altered only in respect of the former, but not of the latter. Granted that this is true of a murderer: before [conversion] his penalty was <font>decapitation</font>, and it is so now too. But [the violation of] a married woman was punishable before [conversion] by <font>decapitation</font>, but now by <font>strangulation</font>? — [This refers to] the violation of a betrothed maiden, for which <font>stoning</font> is decreed in both cases. But 'if he did this to an Israelite' is parallel to 'or violated his neighbour's wife!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'His neighbour's wife' must refer to a nesu'ah, since the sacredness of betrothal alone is not recognised by heathens. Consequently, 'if he did this to an Israelite must also refer to a nesu'ah. ');">¹⁷</span>

פיזור לרשעים הנאה להן והנאה לעולם ולצדיקים רע להן ורע לעולם כנוס לרשעים רע להן ורע לעולם ולצדיקים הנאה להן והנאה לעולם שקט לרשעים רע להן ורע לעולם לצדיקים הנאה להן והנאה לעולם:

— The lesser [punishment] is included in the greater.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this does refer to a nesu'ah, whose violation before conversion is punished by decapitation; after conversion, by stoning. But the latter being more lenient than the former, it is regarded as included therein; hence his death has not changed. But in blasphemy, the change is from decapitation to stoning. Which is the reverse. ');">¹⁸</span> Now this agrees with the view of the Rabbis that <font>decapitation is severer [than stoning]</font>; but on the view of R. Simeon that stoning is the greater punishment, what can you say? — R. Simeon concurs with the Tanna of the School of Manasseh, who says that <font>wherever death is decreed for the Noachide, it is by strangulation</font>. Now, this is true of adultery, the penalty for which both before and after [conversion] is strangulation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the last answer. ');">¹⁹</span> But murder was punishable before by <font>strangulation</font>; now by <font>decapitation</font>! — The lesser is included in the greater.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Decapitation being more lenient than strangulation. ');">²⁰</span> Shall we say that the following supports him? [For it was taught:] If she [sc. a betrothed maiden] sinned [by committing adultery], and then attained puberty [becoming a bogereth], she is <font>strangled</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Keth. 45a. ');">²¹</span> Now, why not <font>stoned</font>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the penalty of a na'arah. ');">²²</span> Surely, because since she is changed [physiologically], she is likewise changed [in respect of punishment];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though here it does not exempt her entirely, since strangulation, to which a bogereth is liable, is included in stoning, the punishment of a na'arah. ');">²³</span> how much more so in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of blasphemy. ');">²⁴</span> where a complete change has taken place? — [This does not support him,] for R. Johanan said to the tanna:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [R. Shila, who recited the Baraitha, Keth. 45a.] ');">²⁵</span> Read, she is stoned. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A 'STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON' IS TRIED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ULTIMATE DESTINY: LET HIM DIE INNOCENT AND LET HIM NOT DIE GUILTY. FOR THE DEATH OF THE WICKED BENEFITS THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It benefits them, in that they sin no more. ');">²⁶</span> OF THE RIGHTEOUS, INJURES THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD. WINE AND SLEEP OF THE WICKED BENEFIT THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For whilst drinking and sleeping they can do no evil. ');">²⁷</span> OF THE RIGHTEOUS, INJURE THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because their time can be better spent, with greater advantage to themselves and to others. ');">²⁸</span> THE SCATTERING OF THE WICKED BENEFITS THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being scattered, they cannot take counsel together for evil. ');">²⁹</span> OF THE RIGHTEOUS, INJURES THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD. THE ASSEMBLING OF THE WICKED INJURES THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD; OF THE RIGHTEOUS, BENEFITS THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD. THE TRANQUILLITY OF THE WICKED INJURES THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it gives them the opportunity of devising evil. ');">³⁰</span> OF THE RIGHTEOUS, BENEFITS THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD.